Skip to main content

Full text of "The English Revisers' [Wescott - Hort] Greek Text: Shown to be Unauthorized, Except by [errant] Egyptian Copies Discarded"

See other formats



shown to b« VHAtmionzsD sxcvr by 

Egyptian Copies Discarded by Greeks 



G e o rg e W h itefie Id Sam p s o n 





Harvard Square 

■ 1882 ■ 


THE British revisers of the English Scrip- 
tures, and their publishers, have shown a natural 
interest in the reception given to their work on 
the New Testament by the American public. 
The same royal patronage of James I. promoted 
Bible revision and fostered settlements of his 
Bible-loving subjects in American Colonies ; and 
nearly three centuries have witnessed the suc- 
cess of both these noble endeavors. A century 
ago, March 22, 1775, in the British Parliament, 
Edmund Burke maintained the political loyalty 
and religious integrity of the colonists, then 
3,000,000 in number, by this statement : " I 
have been told by an eminent book-seller, that 
in no branch of his business, after tracts of pop- 
ular devotion, were so many books as those on 
law exported to the plantations . The colonists 
have now fallen into the way of printing them 
for themselves. I hear that they have sold 
nearly as many of Blackstone's Commentaries 


(issued six years earlier) in America as in En- 
gland." A century of independent growth since 
Mr. Burke thus spoke, with a population of in- 
telligent readers of every nationality, who com- 
pare notes as they study both law-books and 
Bible translations, has but intensified the truth 
thus early apparent to the great British states- 

As to the version itself criticism has been 
specially impartial and appreciative. As was 
natural, eminent American scholars and pub- 
lishers have met native demands for editions in 
which the suggestions of the American revisers 
have been made to appear in the text ; but in 
this no rivalry has been intended. Criticism of 
the translation has been ready and spontaneous. 
A deeper study, that of the text translated, has 
been delayed only that it might be intelligent. 
When the sheets of this review were ready for 
the printer the exceptions taken to the altered 
text by the Bishop of St. Andrews were made 
public. As its last pages are coming from the 
stereotyper the article in the London Quarterly 
for October, 1881, has met the writer's eye. 
The text of the revisers, published by Westcott 
and Hort, may seem to be severely criticised; but 
certainly there has been occasion for review. 

Certainly, too, a lesson is to be learned from 
Christ's apostles as to the purport of His maxim : 



" Be wise as serpents and harmless as doves." 
The oft-rebuked Peter commends sincerely the 
misinterpreted epistles of his " beloved Brother 
Paul " ; and declares them as authoritative as 
the Old Testament Scriptures. Earnest Jude 
writes to his fellow-disciples : " Ye should con- 
tend earnestly for the faith once delivered to 
the saints " ; while, on the other hand, gentle 
John, in his last epistle, enjoins as to his juniors 
in age and his. uninspired fellow-laborers in a 
field remote from his : " We ought to receive 
such that we might be fellow-helpers to the 
truth." The differing views of Christian schol- 
ars and workers are needed to furnish both 
sides of counterpoising convictions essential in 
the quest for truth. The practical wisdom of 
the Bishop of St. Andrews, in his responsible 
charge, was designed to offset the speculative 
judgment of the scholar Tregelles formed in his 
cloistered study. The review not only has an 
occasion, but also a promise. 


of second 

The writer's early conviction, 

The issue taken by the Revisers, . 

The leading examiners of the manuscripts, 

The " koine ekdosis " or " textus receptus," 

The uncial or stichometric manuscripts, 

The uncial and stichometric manuscripts 

The cursive manuscripts and the printed editions, 

Translations in Oriental and European languages, 

The Latin versions and their authority in the Roman 
Catholic Church . 

The Gothic or old German version 

Rules for deciding on the true text of the Greek New 

Trcgelles' rules for determining the text, 

Six passages in Matthew's Gospel omitted by the un- 
cials, , 

Five passages omitted in Mark's and Luke's histories, . 

The three passages omitted from John's writings, 

The countless variations of the three leading uncials, . 

Inequalities and imperfections in the work of Tre- 










Grounds for review of the revisers' changes in the' 
Greek Text * 88 

General reasons for undue trust in the uncial manu- 
scripts, -93 

Unscientific criticism the main source of error as to the 

Egyptian uncials . . io2 

Scientific defence of faith in the truths of natural re- 
ligion to6 

Scientific defense of faith in the Christian revelation, . iio 

Objections to the fact of Inspiration 113 

The manner of the fact of Inspiration illustrated by 
analogy, 120 

Trie common text of the Greek New Testament sus- 
tained 126 

Prospective confirmation of the integrity of the New 
Testament Greek Text, 129 

New Testament Greek Text. 


The early reading of Jahn's " Introduction to 
the Old Testament " and of Hug's " Introduction 
to the New Testament," both biblical studies of 
old Catholics, fixed the conviction that the in- 
tegrity of the original inspired text of the Old 
and New Testaments would alike, each " in due 
time," be satisfactorily established. Prof. Jahn, 
of the University of Vienna, Austria, wrote 
when German Rationalism, opposed alike by 
Evangelical Protestants like Tholuck and by 
conscientious and comprehensive Roman Catho- 
lic scholars, had commenced the effort to under - 
mine the divine inspiration of the Old Testa- 
ment by the search for imperfections, first in its 
statements, and then in its text; which un- 
founded criticisms Jahn met by most exhaustive 
historical and critical research. The translation 
of this voluminous work by Dr. Turner and Rev. 
Mr. Whittingham, of the Protestant Episcopal 
Seminary in New York, and its publication in 


1827, marked an era in American biblical scholar- 
ship. Hug, writing, like Jahn, when the spirit 
of inquiry, which led to the French Revolution, 
awakened all the true guardians of the Christian 
faith to meet by newly-stated evidence the as- 
saults on the genuineness and authenticity of 
the New Testament records, traces back to the 
apostles' time the proofs of the integrity of the 
" koine ekdosis " of the Greek Church, the " tex- 
tus receptus" of the Latin Church, and the 
" common text " of German and English trans- 
lators. He quotes Origen's citing of the fact, 
that the integrity of the Hebrew text of the 
Old Testament was, in the second century, so 
established as to forbid doubt alike / among 
Jews, Christians and the opposers of the com- 
mon faith ; while also, alluding to errors of 
copyists, akin to typographical errors of our 
day, which were magnified by opposers, Origen 
was confident that the Greek text of the New 
Testament was guarded by both divine and 
human sanctity as the "new covenant" made 
by God with man. Hug had before him all the 
important ancient manuscripts called " uncials," 
now cited, except that obtained in 1859 at Mount 
Sinai by Tischendorff; and he subjected these 
manuscripts to the most thorough and impartial 
personal examination. Of his work Gesenius 
said, and Stuart repeated the statement : " He 


excels all his predecessors in deep and funda- 
mental investigations." Perhaps the word " suc- 
cessors " might be added. 

In the years 1847-8 these early convictions 
were personally confirmed. In the Karaite 
synagogue of Cairo, Egypt, whose succession 
dates back to the age of Alexander, who, B.C. 
332, invited Jews to settle, for commercial 
reasons, in Egypt, while the patriarch read from 
one of the oldest manuscripts preserved among 
the Jews since Christ's day, the boys were seen 
to follow the patriarch with small, bound copies, 
prepared from manuscripts kept among Euro- 
pean Christians, and published by the British 
and Foreign Bible Society at London. Im- 
mediately the conviction was formed that the 
agreement between these copies demonstrated 
the perfect integrity of the Hebrew text ; a con- 
viction confirmed, when subsequently a decree 
of the head patriarch of the Jews at Salonica, 
the ancient Thessasolica, Greece, commended 
these copies of the British and Foreign Bible 
Society's issue as strictly conformed to the 
manuscripts preserved among the Jews. The 
possibility of a like demonstrative proof as to 
the manuscripts of the New Testament grew 
up between Alexandria, Egypt, and Athens, 
Greece. In the convent at Mount Sinai there 
was exhibited to a large and wealthy English 


party the manuscript coveted by Tischendorff in 
1844; whose first-glance impression was, in 1866, 
confirmed by scrutiny of the fac-simile, sent by 
the Emperor of Russia to the U. S. Govern- 
ment. On the Nile several convents visited be- 
tween Alexandria and Syene were known to 
have libraries unexplored, where might yet be 
found not only other Egyptian uncial copies, 
but also the originals from which those oft-cor- 
rected copies received their numerous insertions. 
That these originals, from which all the im- 
portant ancient manuscripts were corrected, 
would prove to be the " common text," was veri- 
fied in the University of Athens ; when a keenly 
critical native Greek professor, with a brow per- 
fectly Platonic, was listened to as he comment- 
ed on the original text ; which text was pre- 
cisely that followed by the Protestant translators 
of England and Germany at the era of the 
Reformation; which text, again, is found to 
have been followed in the main by the earlier 
and later Oriental versions from the Syriac, of 
the second century, to the Arabic, of the eighth 
century; and which text, yet again, received 
by the Roman Church at the same era, was es- 
tablished in the Latin Vulgate with few excep- 
tions. Every successive review, following up 
the researches of Tregelles and Tischendorff, 
has added new confirmation to early-formed 


convictions. The appearance of the work of 
the Canterbury revisers, in which, for the first 
time in the history of the Christian Church, the 
uncial manuscripts, made in Egypt by copyists, 
many of whom were ignorant of Greek, have 
been followed as supreme authority in a version 
of the New Testament — this crisis certainly 
calls for a review of the grounds on which de- 
cision as to the integrity of the inspired original 
text must be made to rest. 


When the revision of the received version of 
the English Scriptures was proposed in England 
by the Canterbury Convocation, when a minority 
representation of scholars outside of the Estab- 
lished Church of England was admitted to its 
counsels, and when an American representation 
was invited to make suggestions, though with- 
out any voice in the final decision, few, if any, 
outside of the original and controlling majority 
had the conception that anything more than a 
revision of the translation of the text generally 
received in all branches of the Christian Church, 
Greek and Oriental, Catholic and Protestant, 
was proposed. The fact is now made public that 
some, in the company of revisers selected from 


the English Church itself, were, from the first, 
as much surprised as the Christian world at 
large have been ; for the Bishop of St. Andrews , 
in his late charge to his synod, states, as to his 
own impressions of the revisers' work during its 
progress: " The more I saw of the work , the 
more it appeared to me that we were going 
beyond the purpose for which, as I understood 
it, we have been appointed." Going further, 
and citing omissions like that of the doxology 
in the Lord's Prayer, whose form is used in all 
branches of the Christian Church, except the 
Roman, as a part of Christ's words, the Bishop 
of St. Andrews declares: "I was unable to 
discover .... any actual consensus of scholars 
to demand the changes that have been made." 
To careful students of the history of the New 
Testament the preface of the revisers at once 
hinted that the first object was a revision of the 
received Greek text rather than of the received 
English translation. The casual first glance 
over the entire work showed that that revision 
was confined almost exclusively to omissions 
from the received Greek text ; which omissions 
were justified only by a class of manuscripts 
ancient, indeed, and valuable as relics, but hav- 
ing the following peculiarities, as every testimony 
of their admirers, as well as of their original 
possessors, shows. 


The small collection of ancient manuscripts 
of the New Testament followed, as authorita- 
tive, in the new English revision, have, as the 
best authorities state, these characteristics. They 
were transcribed by Egyptian copyists, most of 
whom were ignorant of Greek , in the age just 
after Constantine, and thence onward for three 
centuries ; a period when the demand for copies 
was pressing. They were modeled strictly after 
Hebrew rather than Greek manuscripts; having 
these two peculiarities. They are in square 
capitals, called " uncial," without accents, punc- 
tuation marks, or even spaces between the 
words. Again, they are arranged in narrow 
columns, with the same number of words in 
each line, called " stichometric," or line-measured ; 
while, unlike the Hebrew, which, by an expan- 
sion of the width of certain letters, made the 
ends of the lines to be parallel with the line of 
their commencement, these lines have the ap- 
pearance of English blank verse ; the columns 
being plumb on the left side, but irregular on 
the right. Since these peculiarities are unlike 
the Greek of their day, and especially Oriental, 
they deserve careful notice. Again, when in 
the hands of Greek scholars for several centuries 
before they came to the libraries of Italy, 
Germany, France, and England, they were cor- 
rected as imperfect by the insertion of numerous 


omitted lines ; these corrections being found in 
all the principal manuscripts; while Tischen - 
dorff states that the Sinaitic was thus corrected 
at ten different eras in different centuries. Yet, 
again, while nearly all these manuscripts are frag- 
mentary, or partial, only three containing origi- 
nally all the books- of the New Testament, two 
of these, by the portions lost, show plainly that 
they were esteemed of little value by their 
Greek possessors. Yet, again, the only two 
which retain the concluding books of the New 
Testament, so as to allow additions, include, 
added to the inspired records, writings of the 
early Christian fathers, showing that the copy- 
ists did not discriminate between' the inspired 
and uninspired writings ; a fact which Tischen- 
dorff, apparently unconscious of the necessary 
inference which must be drawn from his state- 
ment, cites as proof of the particular era when 
his manuscript had its origin. 

That the true relation of the text of these 
uncials to the Greek " koine ekdosis," or " com- 
mon text," may be seen, the following order of 
survey seems to be required : first, a mention of 
the most thorough examiners of the manuscripts 
who have recorded matured convictions, especi- 
ally as to their numerous omissions ; second, a 
notice of the " common text," and the history 
of the earlier and later Greek manuscripts, of 


versions Oriental and European made from the 
" common text " rather than the Egyptian un- 
cials ; and, lastly, .the contrasted weight allowed 
to the uncials by the Canterbury revisers and the 
two scholars whose new view controlled their 


The impression has been recently encouraged 
that the manuscripts at issue were unknown to, 
or were unexamined by, philological students 
until within the last forty years. On the con- 
trary, these facts are historically sustained : first, 
that all of them were known for centuries to 
Greek scholars, by whom they were examined 
and corrected ; second, that Roman Catholic 
and Protestant translators had before them 
most of these manuscripts, as well as the " com- 
mon " Greek text, at the era of the Reforma- 
tion ; third, that of the uncial manuscripts most 
relied on by the present revisers, the Vatican 
was used by the Roman revisers of the Greek 
text ; the Alexandrine, sent to Charles I., was 
thoroughly examined by Poole, under Charles 
II. ; while it is the Sinaitic, the one most mani- 
festly erroneous in its omissions, and the most 
corrected by Greek scholars, which has led to 


the newly controlling impression as to their 
authoritative value. 

The four examiners, whose thorough explora- 
tions, so harmonious in their record as to the 
character of the manuscripts, entitles their 
work to special consideration, are Poole, Hug, 
Tregelles, and Tischendorff. Poole was an 
eminent Presbyterian scholar , a leader in 
thought during the Commonwealth, whose 
conscientious convictions would not allow him 
to conform to the ecclesiastical polity and the rit- 
ualistic service of the English Church as ordered 
and enforced under Charles II. His recognized 
eminence and his civil loyalty, however, though 
necessarily depriving him of his State support 
and of his parish, led Charles to favor and even 
to court his services. Devoting himself to the 
life-work of bringing together in his "Synopsis 
Criticorum " all known authorities as to both 
the text and the interpretation of the text oi 
the Old and New Testaments, collating with 
care the accordant Catholic and Protestant 
revisers of the Greek text, and associated with 
Walton in his Polyglot Bible, and with Castell 
in his Heptaglott Lexicon, Poole's recorded 
researches on disputed portions of the text bear 
favorable comparison with even the recent 
labors of Tregelles, while his decisions are in 
accord with the whole Christian world. In his 


loyal dedication to Charles II. he expresses in- 
debtedness to his sovereign for having put at 
his special disposal the valuable manuscripts 
(Chartas) within the reach of Government 
authorities. On the doxology of the Lord's 
Prayer, Matt. vi. 13, and on the recognition of 
the Trinity, 1 John v. 7, he quotes the early 
fathers far more fully than even Tregelles ; his 
citations of the versions are more complete; 
and his allusions to the " Britannic " and to the 
" Parisian Codices " show clearly that the Alex- 
andrine, as well as other uncial manuscripts, 
had been his study. 

The most comprehensive and specially im- 
partial examiner of the uncial manuscripts was 
Hug, a German Catholic of the early part of 
the present century; who devotes more than 
250 large octavo pages to a complete statement 
concerning the Greek text as established by 
manuscripts, by the versions, and by the early 
Christian writers. He lived and wrote when 
the truly Catholic spirit so triumphed that the 
early Roman Catholic versions made at the era 
of the Reformation were sustained and copied. 
As an instance of this fact, a German version of 
the New Testament, published at Carlsruhe in 
18 1 5, read daily by children and youth in the 
public schools in Catholic Germany, makes the 
following statement in a note on Matt. xvi. 18: 


that Christ did not refer to Peter the man, but 
to the sentiment he uttered ; as the word 
" petra," in the feminine, alike in the original 
Greek and in the Latin Vulgate, clearly indi- 
cates. Of Hug's thorough examination Gesenius 
wrote : " He excels all his predecessors in deep 
and profound investigations." Of his impartial 
spirit, Stuart, who supervised the translation of 
his " Introduction to the New Testament," and 
its issue from the Andover press, in 1836, makes 
this statement: "Hug is a Roman Catholic 
with a kind of Protestant heart." Hug's state- 
ments as to the uncial manuscripts, all of which 
of any importance, except the Sinaitic manu- 
script, were subjected to a thorough examina- 
tion, are the fullest accessible to modern 

The two authorities who guided the Canter- 
bury revisers are Tregelles and Tischendorff. 
The former has given his life to the collation of 
Greek manuscripts, of versions and of quota- 
tions from the New Testament made by the 
early Christians down to Eusebius, the historian 
of Constantine's age. Tregelles began his 
labors in revision and collation of ancient 
manuscripts in 1844. The first issue of his 
work was in parts, Matthew and Mark appear- 
ing in 1857, Luke and John in i860, then the 
Acts and Catholic Epistles, in 1869 Paul's Epis- 



ties, and last the Apocalypse. As his work was 
continually progressive, as TischendorfTs manu- 
scripts did not enter into his first collation, and 
as a comprehensive collation of all authorities 
could not be made in any one man's lifetime, the 
latest edition in his declining health was made 
by another hand . Under the auspices, and for 
the benefit of his widow, the final work, in one 
large volume, appeared in 1872. No mind that has 
any esteem for honest and earnest thought and 
research can fail to appreciate the work to 
which Tregelles gave his years ; and no heart, 
touched by Divine grace, can fail to be moved 
by the pious devotion with which he made his 
last dedication of his life-work. But, no one 
who thoroughly examines the character and his- 
tory of the uncial manuscripts, to whose author- 
ity Tregelles gave implicit confidence, can fail 
to recall many another noble mind liable to be 
misled . 

Tischendorfl", the contemporary of Tregelles, 
from the first an explorer and collector, having 
first seen in 1844, and finally in 1859 having 
obtained the Sinaitic manuscript, has devoted 
his later years to a collation of varied manu- 
scripts, including fragments gathered by himself. 
While admired by Tregelles for his enthusiasm 
as a collator, TischendorfTs judgment as to the 
comparative value of his personal contributions 


was not shared either by Tregelles or by other 
collators . The work of Tischendorff* of chief 
value in tracing the history of the text adopted 
by the Canterbury revisers , is his edition of 
" The Authorized English Version," issued from 
the famed Tauchnitz press at Leipzig in 1869 ; 
in which the numberless omissions from the 
"common" Greek text, followed by King 
James' translators, which are found in the 
Alexandrine, Vatican, and Sinaitic manuscripts, 
are brought together and are presented in 


It has become an unwarranted custom to 
allude to the text used by both Catholic and 
Protestant translators at the era of the Refor- 
mation, styled in Latin the " textus receptus," as 
if it were made up at that time ; whereas it was 
then found as the universally received text of 
the Roman, the Oriental, and especially of the 
Greek Church, which Church still uses the 
original Greek as their vernacular. The history 
of this text, traced by Hug at length , may 
be briefly summarized. 

During the life of Christ's apostles, " Paul's 
epistles," designed as truly for all the churches 



as were Peter's " Epistles General,"— the epistles 
of Paul were so numerously copied, so exten- 
sively distributed, so generally read, and so 
independently interpreted, that Peter declares 
(2 Peter iii. 15, 16) they were like the Scriptures 
of the Old Testament, already wwinterpreted. 
The vital point as to the preservation, in copies, 
of the original text of the New Testament is 
thus established. A recognized copy of an in- 
spired epistle had, in the writer's own day, the 
accuracy, and hence the authority of the orig- 
inal manuscripts; a principle which deserves 
special consideration. No men more fully than 
Tregclles and Tischendorff, in common with all 
thorough students of historic records, declare : 
that " no documents have been guarded with 
such care as the Old Testament Scriptures, or 
have been preserved with more accuracy than 
the New Testament records." Christ alludes 
to the care with which the Hebrews copied the 
manuscripts of the Old Testament when he 
said : " Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or 
one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law till 
all be fulfilled." In this a double safeguard is 
indicated : first, the care of men, in the past so 
unparalleled, would prevent the omission of 
the minute letter "yod," or even of the " little 
curve " which distinguishes one letter from 
another, as, for example, the Hebrew d from r ; 


second, there is promised for the future a Divine 
watch-care, alike applicable to the revelation 
then 'given, and to that which through His 
apostles He would subsequently give. The 
Apostle Paul, referring to a truth familiar to 
human legislators, writes as to the new covenant, 
given before the old covenant, though fully re- 
vealed only in the New Testament : " Though it 
be but a man's covenant, yet if it be confirmed no 
man disannulleth or addeth thereto." Bible 
scholars, who are at the same time jurists, such 
as Grotius and Greenleaf, observe that while 
poems like those of Homer and Virgil, orations 
like those of Demosthenes and Cicero, histories 
like those of Herodotus and Tacitus, come 
down from past ages wonderfully preserved, 
law codes still authoritative, like that of Jus- 
tinian, never have the genuineness of their 
oft-copied records brought into question. What 
Englishman or American, however much inter- 
pretations may differ, ever dreams that the 
" textus receptus " of " Magna Charta," or of 
the American Constitution, will in any future 
day, any more than in the past or present, be 
called in question simply because the original 
documents may be lost, and only copies 
remain ! 

Hug has rendered special service in tracing 
the history of the " koine ekdosis " or " com- 


mon edition" (vulgaris editio) in the early 
centuries back to the apostles' age. Stating 
the liabilities to error in copying, which the 
works of Homer illustrated, observing that the 
same liability applied to the Greek translation 
of the Old Testament, which was not regarded 
as sacred, Hug is assured that till the third 
century, when the first '.' recensions " were 
made, the " koine ekdosis " or " common edi - 
tion " was recognized and authoritative . His 
comparison of the Egyptian and Palestine 
copies at this period deserves special considera- 
tion, since the preference given to the^former is 
only expressed when the Latin Vulgate demands 
his acquiescence. At that era, because of de- 
signed misinterpretations by men who, like 
Marcion, specially theorized as to the Divine 
nature of Jesus as " the Son of God," and also 
by carelessness in inexperienced copyists, differ- 
ent readings were quoted ; while, nevertheless, 
as these were citations of the supposed sense 
rather than of the words of the text, even 
Marcion is defended from unjust aspersion by 
Hug. The contrast between the New Testa- 
ment Greek and the Old Testament Greek 
translation, is noted by Origen thus : " In the 
copies of the Old Testament, indeed, with the 
help of God, we have remedied this confusion," 
and in apparent confidence in a like Divine aid 


he attempted his " recension " or revision of the 
text. As to the centre where copies were 
chiefly made, Hug says : " Alexandria had long 
supplied the West with Greek copies of all 
learned works, and the West obtained from the 
same source manuscripts of the New Testa- 
ment," and he cites Suetonius (in Domit. c. 20) 
in confirmation. The " recensions," to which 
the age of Origen gave rise, like those of the 
age of the Reformation, indicate, as Hug shows 
by an extended collation, that a theological 
bias, especially as to Christ's Divinity, as rife 
and as decided as that of our day, controlled 
the revisers; those of Hesychius and Lucian 
especially, revealing that a prejudice because of 
a prejudgment influenced the revisers in com- 
paring copies. This difficulty was afterward 
aggravated by the political dissensions of the 
Eastern and Western Empire, which culminated 
when Constantine fixed the seat of Empire at 

The act of Constantine, recorded by Euse- 
bius, in causing a large number of copies of the 
Greek Scriptures to be made by authorized 
writers, and to be distributed throughout the 
Empire, but especially in the East, doubtless 
fixed the " koine ekdosis " as it now maintains 
in Greece and in every part of the Oriental 
Church. It was this text, still ruling undis- 



puted in the Oriental Church, that was adopted 

in the Protestant, and substantially in the 
Roman Catholic, versions made at the Refor- 
mation. It is this to which Tregelles refers 
occasionally, as on 1 John v. 7, as the "codices 
Graeci hodierni," or the Greek codes of to-day. 
It should be distinctly observed that this text 
of the ages, preserved by the Greeks themselves, 
is like Justinian's " Institutes " in all Europe, 
and like Blackstone in England and America. 
It is the "common law text"; and therefore 
on every critic, who in Germany, England, or 
America disputes its authority, the " burden of 
proof" rests. 


The classification of manuscripts thus desig- 
nated by Tregelles is minutely and discrimina- 
tivcly made in Hug. Tregelles, referring to the 
square capital letters used in the ancient Greek 
manuscripts, calls them " uncials," dividing 
them into two classes : first, " the most ancient," 
or those " prior to the seventh century " ; and 
second, " later uncial manuscripts of special 
importance." Hug, referring rather to the 
" line-me... are," called " stichometric " in the 
Greek, divides them into "stichometric" and 
" non-stichometiic." Though the principle of 



classification is distinct, the general result of 
these divisions is substantially the same. Hug's 
description of the two leading manuscripts 
which rule the decisions of Tregelles as to the 
text, is specially minute. Hug introduces his 
description of these two, the Vatican and 
Alexandrine, by stating that their designation 
of priority, as indicated by A for the Alexan- 
drine, B for the Vatican, and C for the Parisian, 
is " probably more from accident than anything 
else "; though to men of less secluded habits it 
is apparent that England's leadership in bibli- 
cal translation, like her leadership in navigation, 
has allowed her classification of these manu- 
scripts, as it has allowed her fixing of Greenwich 
as the unit of longitude. Hug, as a Catholic 
scholar, placed the Vatican manuscript first in 
his investigation. The Vatican is on fine 
parchment ; the letters are square and perfectly 
uniform, the initials included ; the letters 
are equidistant, with no separation between 
the words; there are no punctuation-marks; 
the lines, as in blank verse, are irregular in the 
line of their ending, showing that the copyist 
followed the Hebrew, not the Greek idea ; the 
columns are narrow and the lines short, and 
there are six columns on each sheet of parch- 
ment, or three lines when cut into two, the 
sheets being necessarily limited to the size of 


the skin. Among the minor corrections, in- 
serted at later periods by Greek scholars, are 
these : the writing of large initials where Greek 
taste required ; punctuation-marks afterward 
introduced, but only seldom ; Greek accents 
sometimes, but not always, added ; besides nu- 
merous other indications, detailed by Hug, 
which prove that the manuscript was orig - 
inally "written by an Egyptian calligraphist," 
whose work required correction. Hug had the 
personal privilege of a thorough study of this 
manuscript. Tregelles makes this statement as 
to his own work : " This manuscript, which is of 
the greatest importance, is cited from the col- 
lations of others, in consequence of permission 
having been refused to use the manuscript it- 
self." This statement occurs in his first issue, 
made in 1857; subsequent to which era it was 
open to Protestant scholars. Tregelles regards 
the Vatican as a manuscript of the fourth cent- 
ury, and the Alexandrine of the fifth ; which, 
according to his own rule of superiority, makes 
the Vatican manuscript, as Hug decided, the 
first in order of age, and, as Tregelles' rule indi- 
cates, the first in authority. That it was re- 
garded by its Greek possessors imperfect is in- 
dicated by Hug's citation of insertions made in 
a different hand at two successive eras. As to 
carelessness in its preservation, Hug states: 


" It contains .... in the following order, the 
Gospels, Acts, the Catholic and Pauline epistles 
as far as Heb. ix. 14. The Epistles to Timo- 
thy, Titus, Philemon, together with the Apoca- 
lypse, have been destroyed by time." Tischen- 
dorff states that an edition begun in 1828, by 
Mai, afterwards Cardinal, was not published till 
after his death in 1857; and his own examina- 
tion in 1867 showed that the work of Mai was 
" extremely inaccurate " ; and he adds, "many 
hundreds of his errors are corrected by the 
present writer." The thoughtful reader may 
well ask : if many " hundreds of corrections " 
were required in this modern copy, may not the 
hundreds of departures from the universally 
" received text " found in this old Egyptian 
copy manuscript, which are noted by Tischen- 
dorff in his English Testament, have also 
needed the corrections made by Greek schol- 
ars centuries before it was studied at Rome by 
modern scholars ? 

The second manuscript in importance, ac- 
cording to Tregelles as well as Hug, is the Al- 
exandrine ; so called by English scholars be- 
cause it was brought from Alexandria, Egypt, 
by a bishop of the Greek Church to Constanti- 
nople ; where it was made a present to Charles 
I., and came into the British Museum. It is 
doubtless this manuscript to which Poole, writ- 


ing under Charles II., alludes, on 1st John v. 7, 
as the " Britannic " ; as Hug, nearly two centuries 
later, refers to it under the name of the Mu- 
seum, where it is guarded as the " Britannic." 
The characteristics of this manuscript are the 
following: Its letters are square, larger than 
those of the Vatican manuscript ; the words are 
not separated; initials are of larger size; sec- 
tions are indicated by blank spaces ; there are 
neither accents nor punctuation-marks ; all in- 
dicating, Hug states, that it "was written in 
Egypt," by a copyist not a Greek. There are 
two, instead of, as in the Vatican, three, or six 
columns to the page; the lines are not "sticho- 
mctric," but continuous ; while, however, in- 
serted dots indicate the ends of the lines in the 
earlier manuscript from which it was copied. 
This later device, like the paging of earlier edi- 
tions of the Greek and Latin fathers, and of the 
Law Commentaries of Blackstone and Kent, in- 
serted in later editions, manifestly indicates that 
the stichometric arrangement of Hebrew manu- 
scripts, and of the Greek translations made by 
Hebrews, was designed for convenience of refer- 
ence ; made necessary before the division into 
chapters and verses had been introduced. Hug 
reckons this manuscript, therefore, among the 
stichometric ; as it is also uncial so far as the 
form of the letters is concerned. As to care in 


preservation, all examiners mention that the 
former portion, unlike the Vatican, which lacks 
the latter portions, is lost up to Matt. xxv. 6 ; as 
are also the leaves constituting John vi. 50 to 
viii. 52, and 2 Cor. iv. 13 to xii. 2. This was the 
chief manuscript personally examined by Tre- 
gelles. Tischendorff make's this fuller historical 
statement : " The Alexandrine Codex was pre- 
sented to King Charles the First in 1628 by Cy- 
ril Lucar, Patriarch of Constantinople, who had 
himself brought it from Alexandria ; of which 
place he was formerly Patriarch, and whence it 
derives its name." Tischendorff adds this more 
important statement: "The manuscript con- 
tains the Epistle of Clemens Romanus (the 
only known copy), a letter of Athanasius, and 
a treatise of Eusebius on the Psalms." The 
thoughtful student would naturally be prepared 
for the suggestion of Tischendorff as to its fel- 
low manuscript, the Sinaitic, that this addition 
is proof that the copyist did not discriminate 
between the inspired and uninspired writings ; 
and so could not have been an intelligent 
guardian of the sacred text. 

The third and most important of the three 
manuscripts regarded by both Tischendorff and 
Tregelles as of supreme authority in fixing 
the Greek text of the New Testament is the 
Sinaitic. It was discovered by Tischendorff 


when at the Greek convent at Mt. Sinai in 
1844, in a manner which indicated the little 
value placed on it by its Greek possessors. In 
a waste basket his eye rested on a leaf of 
parchment ; which on examination proved to 
be a portion of the Greek translation of the 
Old Testament. Farther search revealed other 
leaves; the monks on being questioned and 
promised a fee produced others; but, while 
Tischendorff was occupied in assorting and ar- 
ranging them, the monks suddenly interposed 
and would permit no farther examination. It 
was not until fifteen years later, in 1859, that, 
furnished by the Russian Government with 
means for the purchase, and commended by 
the authority of the associated convents of 
Egypt, whose interposition was prompted by 
the patronage of the Emperor of Russia, Tisch- 
endorff succeeded in purchasing the entire man- 
uscript of which those leaves were a part. The 
manuscript meanwhile had been examined by 
different visitors to the convent ; among others 
by a learned English party with which the 
writer was temporarily associated in 1848. In 
1862 the Russian Government issued, and sent 
to leading allied Governments, fac-similes of 
this manuscript; one of which was long un- 
rolled in a central case of the main gallery at 
the Smithsonian Institution, and was subject to 


the inspection of scholars. The main charac- 
teristics of this manuscript, as stated by Tisch- 
endorff, are these : It is written in four columns 
to a page. The New Testament portion is 
complete, "without the loss of a single leaf." 
Yet more, as Tischendorff, unconscious of the 
inference necessarily following from the fact, 
states : " In addition it contains the entire 
Epistle of Barnabas and a portion of the Shep- 
herd of Hermas; two books, which, down to 
the beginning of the fourth century, were 
looked upon by many as Scripture." This 
manifest contradiction to TischendorfFs later 
statement led Tregelles so to doubt the accuracy 
of Tischendorffs judgment, that he manifestly 
undervalued the Sinaitic, which alone contained 
all the New Testament writings, as compared 
with the Vatican and Alexandrine manuscripts. 
The statement itself of Tischendorff convinces 
every impartial student of the demonstrated 
fact : that the copyist of the Sinaitic manuscript 
was like those of the Vatican and Alexandrine, 
an Egyptian mechanical transcriber; who was 
ignorant of the nature of the work which he 
was tracing in mere outline. The dependence 
of the convent at Mt. Sinai, where the manu- 
script was found, upon Egypt for all its sup- 
plies, makes the origin of this manuscript as 
clear as that of the two associated manuscripts 



already considered. As to its imperfection, ap- 
parent to the eye and recognized by its Greek 
possessors, Tischendorff states that at no less 
than ten successive eras , as the changed hand- 
writing shows, this manuscript was corrected by 
Greek revisers. Some of these corrections, in- 
dicating the grossest carelessness , are the fre- 
quent omission of entire lines , afterwards in- 
serted ; and sometimes the insertion of the same 
line a second time, the pen of the Greek reviser 
having erased the careless insertion. No 
thoughtful student can avoid the question, 
" From what were the corrections made ? " 
The fact is demonstrative, — -it is seen in every 
insertion cited yet rejected by Tregelles, — that 
the "koine ekdosis," the common text always 
recognized , — as Hug traces it and as Tregelles 
admits its history, — was in the hands of the 
Greek revisers of the Sinaitic manuscript. The 
suggestion is a natural one, which may hereafter 
be verified, that the original from which these 
corrections were made, and which a Greek con- 
vent would never surrender, is still in the hands 
of the monks ; and it may yet be brought to 
light. Tischendorff proceeds : " All the consid- 
erations which tend to fix the date of manu- 
scripts lead to the conclusion that the Sinaitic 
Codex belongs to the middle of the fourth cent- 
ury. Indeed, the evidence is clearer in this case 



than in that of the Vatican Codex ; and it is not 
improbable (which cannot be the case with the 
Vatican manuscript) that it is one of the fifty 
copies of the Scriptures which the Emperor 
Constantine in the year 331 directed to be 
made for Byzantium under the care of Eusebius 
of Caesarea. In that case it is a natural infer- 
ence that it was sent from Byzantium to the 
monks of St. Catharine by the Emperor Justin- 
ian, the founder of the convent." This amiable 
admiration for his own discovered and secured 
ancient treasure every earnest explorer can ap- 
preciate ; while at the same time all his brother 
explorers, like Tregelles, regard it as an amiable 
weakness ; since the evidence is clearer than in 
the case of the other two manuscripts that no 
Greek at Byzantium, but that an Egyptian 
hand at Alexandria made this copy; though, 
in the cloisters of St. Catharine at Mt. Sinai, 
the manuscript from which TischendorfTs 
Egyptian copy was corrected may be still hid ; 
while, too, this original, from which the correc- 
tions were made, may be one of those executed 
at Byzantium by order of the Emperor Con- 
stantine. To every scholar familiar with the 
traditional claim to the succession to the old 
Greek Empire made by the Russian Imperial 
family, a tradition which has preserved to this 
day the names Alexander and Constantine as a 



household inheritance, — to such scholars the re- 
sult of this claim for his manuscript may be 
seen in the added statement: "The entire 
Codex was published by its discoverer, under 
the orders of the Emperor of Russia, in 1862, 
with the most scrupulous exactness, and in a 
truly magnificent shape ; and the New Testa- 
ment portion was issued in a portable form in 
1863 and 1865." The Republic of Letters re- 
joice in this result; whether the authority of 
the manuscript be of the highest or lowest 


As heretofore observed, while Hug makes the 
distinction between the stichometric, or " line- 
measured," and the " non-stichometric " manu- 
scripts, Tregelles makes his division between 
" uncials prior to the seventh century " and 
those of later date. It is sufficient for the 
present survey to allude to the chief manu- 
scripts of this class as described in common by 
these two, the German Catholic and the English 
Protestant examiners. After the Alexandrine, 
marked A, the Vatican, marked B, and the 
Sinaitic, marked with the Hebrew letter Aleph, 
because the Roman letters were previously ap- 
propriated, come the following. Codex C is 



called " Ephraeem " because on selected leaves 
of an Egyptian uncial manuscript there had 
been copied some treatises of Ephraeem, a 
Syrian Christian writer of the age succeeding 
Constantine. These selected leaves, embracing 
a considerable portion of the New Testament, 
were written after the Greek manner, across the 
page, and not in columns ; the manuscript was 
uncial, though not stichometric ; and the por- 
tion preserved is styled a "palimpsest," or 
erased manuscript, because the inked lines of 
the New Testament Greek had been partially 
obliterated in order that the new work might 
be written on the parchment. This manuscript 
is in the Royal Library at Paris ; it was referred 
to by Poole as the Parisian ; it is fully described 
by Hug; it was edited by Tischendorff in 1841 ; 
and it was examined by Tregelles. The reason 
of its being used thus Hug finds to be the little 
value placed on it by its Greek owners; his 
statement being: "The ancient characters had 
become obsolete ; people had become accus- 
tomed to the cursive hand with all its reading- 
points and division-marks ; and they seized upon 
an old manuscript to apply them to a better 
purpose." It contains, with considerable breaks, 
the entire list of New Testament writings in the 
order of the Vatican and Alexandrine copies ; 
its letters are handsome uncials ; it had none of 


the Greek accents, and few punctuation-marks ; 
and the words are not separated. That it was 
a copy made in Egypt Hug declares: "This 
Codex, likewise, was written in Alexandria or 
somewhere in Egypt " ; and cites characteristics 
which so prove. That it was, like all the others 
named, corrected as imperfect by Greek revisers, 
Hug twice states; remarking as to inserted 
punctuation-marks: "a later hand has almost 
invariably written in different ink," etc. ; and 
declaring as to general corrections : " In com- 
paring this manuscript with the Alexandrine 
we find it has not so many additions attribut- 
able to a later hand." 

Codex D, containing the Gospels and Acts, is 
stichometric ; and it has the Latin of Jerome in 
parallel columns ; it has no Greek accents ; and 
it lacks some leaves. From Alexandria it mani- 
festly passed into Latin hands; it was used by 
Robert Stephens in 1550 in preparing his text ; 
it passed into the hands of Beza and went to 
the Cambridge Library under his name in 1581. 
As to the copyist, Hug says : " The calligraphist 
knew but little of Greek and as little of Latin. 
Unskilled in these languages, he wrote his 
manuscript in his professional capacity. He 
was an Egyptian or Alexandrian." Of these 
facts Hug cites proofs ; as also as to pages, lost 
from the manuscript and supplied from other 


sources. It should be observed that this manu- 
script is the one held in chief esteem by those 
who regard the uncial manuscripts, because of 
their antiquity, to be special authority. 

Codex E contains only the Acts, and lacks 
some pages; it is uncial and stichometric ; it 
has no Greek accents ; and it has the Latin of 
Jerome. Hug says : " It is the second known 
Greco- Latin manuscript which is of Alexandrian 
origin." Prior to the eighth century it was 
known in Sardinia ; coming to England it was 
presented by Archbishop Laud to the Bodleian 
Library ; and its character, as well as history, is 
familiar in the Oriental, Roman, and Reformed 
Churches. Codex D, consisting of the Epistles 
of Paul, sometimes regarded as a continuation 
of the Codex Beza, though in a very different 
hand-writing, has the Greek and Latin text ; it 
is uncial and stichometric; it was copied by 
different hands ; it has many later corrections ; 
and some portions have been retouched with 
ink. It is in the Paris Library. Codex F was 
formerly at Reichenau, Switzerland, in a Bene- 
dictine monastery ; but it passed to Cambridge, 
England. It has the Greek and Latin in uncial 
letters and in stichometric lines ; the Greek 
having no accents, though the words are sepa- 
rated. Codex G, sometimes regarded as a copy 
of F, Hug shows to have been a copy, as F, 


from an earlier corrected manuscript ; some of 
whose corrections were omitted by each. Both 
these are in Germany. Codex H, now at Metz, 
France, is traced by Hug to Mt. Athos, Greece. 
It is uncial and stichometric. As indicating 
that it was regarded by Greek scholars, in the 
centre of Grecian culture, as of no intrinsic 
value, Hug states: " In earlier times this Codex 
was on Mt. Athos; where it was used for old 
parchment to cover books in 1208; as appears 
from a note in the book which it was used to 

Thus. ends Hug's list of stichometric uncials. 
All the important ones are traceable to mere 
mechanical Egyptian copyists at the seat of the 
first cosmopolitan Christian school at Alexan- 
dria; all were regarded by Greeks as uncon - 
formed to their own " koine ekdosis, " and hence 
were repeatedly corrected ; all were esteemed of 
no value except as relics; and as such, mere 
relics, their Greek owners parted with them as 
fit collections only for a museum. As these 
most ancient of the list, called " stichometric " 
because conformed to Hebrew ideas in their 
line-measured columns, are all of the character 
thus indicated, the later manuscripts of the 
class, some fragments of which, since Hug wrote, 
Tischendorff has discovered and added to the 
collection, need not be farther considered. 



Of these the most laborious collators like 
Hug and Tregelles could examine only a few ; 
and those which they have regarded the more 
important. The number known to the Re- 
formers, at the era when Protestant and Catho- 
lic presses published the first printed editions, 
which are so nearly alike and especially free 
from the appalling omissions of the uncial manu- 
scripts — the number is so variously stated that 
it is manifest local examiners have known only 
a few of the multitudes that exist; the few 
which came within their individual notice. 
Hug specially refers to only six or eight; the 
first being marked No. I at Basle, Switzerland, 
and the last No. 579 in the Vatican Library at 
Rome. Tregelles quotes but few numbers; 
sometimes using the abbreviation rel. for " rel- 
iqui " ; which indicates that the rest, or the 
cursive manuscripts generally, are in accord. 
The important fact to retain in mind and to 
hold in thought is this: that all these cursive 
manuscripts known to European scholars are 
but the rescripts from copies which the Greek 
Church have fu'rnished from their numberless 
stores ; for, while monks of the Latin Church 
have devoted their lives for centuries chiefly to 


the works of the fathers, the monks of the 
Greek Church and of its Oriental branches have 
devoted themselves specially to copying the 
Sacred Scriptures. From these cursive manu- 
scripts, made by native Greeks from their " koine 
ekdosis," which, like the common-law, has come 
down from time immemorial — from these cursive 
Greek manuscripts, as opposed to the uncials 
of Egyptian copyists, most of which were in 
their hands, both Protestant and Roman Catho- 
lic scholars made up the text, which, when the 
art of printing was invented, became the editions 
which appeared at the age of the Reformation. 
"A beautiful invention," writes Hug, "released 
the copyists from their laborious occupation ; 
and who would not imagine that it would very 
soon have been applied to the documents of 
Christianity?" This natural outburst of a rev- 
erent and devoted Catholic in the beginning of 
the 19th century is followed by the statement 
that the art of printing was first applied to 
classic authors, and then to " the Latin and Ger- 
man Bible," before it was used in multiplying 
copies of the inspired Greek New Testament 
records. The complete history of editions, down 
to his time, then follows ; beginning with that 
of Cardinal Ximenes, begun 1502 and finished 
1514, called the Complutensian ; associated with 
which was that of Erasmus, began later, but 



published earlier. Ximenes had the " use of 
the oldest and most correct manuscripts .... 
from the Papal Library." Erasmus had Greek 
and Latin manuscripts and also collated quota- 
tions made by early fathers as Origen, Chrysos- 
tom, Cyril, Jerome, Ambrose, Hilary, and Augus- 
tine. Robert Stephens followed ; with editions 
published in 1546, '49, and '50; to which was 
added one by his son in 1569. The only pas- 
sage, whose omission has become marked in 
later discussions as to the uncial manuscripts, 
that called for special defence by Ximenes and 
Stephens, in these earliest printed editions of 
the Greek New Testament, is that found in 1 
John v. 7. Of these early editions, so far as 
their authoritative originals are concerned, Hug 
says : they " possessed inestimable value in their 
day " ; while, so far as the collation of manu- 
scripts and the " critical stores which were with- 
in their reach in the obscurity of libraries " are 
concerned, their resources did not compare with 
modern research. It is certain, however, that 
these editions did not -make a text ; and that 
which they found in the cursive manuscripts at 
hand was, as a careful comparison now shows, 
the "koine ekdosis," which has come down 
through the ag es unchallenged in the Church 
which still uses only the Greek Scriptures. As 
to the Egyptian uncial manuscripts, since the 


Vatican manuscript was in the catalogue of that 
library published in 1475, it must have been 
among those "oldest" manuscripts used by- 
Cardinal Ximenes in 1502-14; while both Eras- 
mus and Stephens had some of the more im- 
portant uncials. 


While translations from the Greek only indi- 
cate indirectly and by inference what the original 
text was from which the translation was made, 
and while therefore all scholars place versions 
as second in authority to Greek manuscripts 
nevertheless, as the translations of Justinian's 
Institutes are just as authoritative as the origi- 
nal Latin on the bench of the U. S. Courts in 
the Gulf States, so is it with early translations 
of the New Testament. The versions of the 
New Testament, as the Syriac and Latin, made 
prior to the age of the earliest known Greek 
manuscripts, have an authority superior to the 
uncial manuscripts so far as antiquity is con- 
cerned. A nd, it is specially to be observed, that 
the supposed authority of the earliest uncial 
manuscripts is made by their advocates to rest 


on priority of existence. In his logical discus- 
sion of this point Hug says: " We are in posses- 
sion of documents which are much more ancient 
than the oldest manuscripts " ; and he adds : 
" so far as the antiquity of the testimony merits 
regard some of them will even surpass the manu- 
scripts in authority." 

The oldest among the Syriac versions, as all 
agree, is the " Peschito," or " Literal "; to which, 
as Hug shows, Hegisippus, a writer in the latter 
part of the second century, refers. This version, 
then, was made only a century after John wrote 
his Gospel and Epistles ; and was translated 
from manuscripts used two centuries before the 
oldest uncial manuscripts existed. This version, 
Hug shows at length, was made from the Greek ; 
and it therefore gives the testimony of the 
second century as to what the Greek text of 
the then received "koine ekdosis" was. Hug 
fills several pages with proofs as to the history 
and the authority of this earliest version. The 
second Syrian version of note, called generally 
the Philoxenian, but styled by Tregelles the 
" Harciean," has its history fixed by the post- 
script; which states: "This manuscript was 
translated from the Greek into the Syriac .... 
in the year of Alexander 819 ( a.d. 508 ) in the 
day of Philoxenus It was afterwards col- 
lated, with care, by me, poor Thomas, with two 


very excellent and correct copies, in the Anto- 
nia at Alexandria." The translation was not by 
Philoxenus ; though dedicated to him as bishop. 
The collation by "poor Thomas," a monk of 
Kharkel, written in German " Charkel " and' in 
English " Harkel," was made A.D. 616 . This, 
and other later Syriac versions, as Hug shows, 
were tinctured by the doctrines of the Syrian 
Church ; still exemplified in .the creed of the 
Nestorians of the Persian mountains, who, at 
this day, use a Syriac version. The third Syriac 
version, called by Hug the " Palestino-Syriac," 
and by Tregelles the " Jerusalem " version, con- 
tains only the Gospel selections of the Syriac 

The Armenian version, contemporary with 
the invention of their alphabet, appeared early 
in the fifth century. Prior to this time the Ar- 
menian Christians had used the Syriac transla- 
tion. The first effort at translation was made 
from the Syriac ; but two Armenian scholars, 
who met the Ephesian Synod A. D. 43 1 and 
brought home a carefully copied Greek manu- 
script, afterwards determined to master the 
Greek language at Alexandria, Egypt, and from 
it to make a version. Their work shows, as Hug 
indicates, that these Armenian translators fol- 
lowed sometimes the Ephesian manuscript, con- 
formed to the " koine ekdosis," and sometimes 



an Egyptian manuscript having the omissions 
found in Codex D, the Cambridge uncial. 

The Egyptian, versions have an uncertain his- 
tory. The Egyptians, who after the age of Al- 
exander spoke a language into which many 
Greek terms had been introduced, are known 
to have had a version in their tongue early in 
the fourth century, prior to the age of Constan- 
tine; and Hug thinks such Egyptian versions 
existed at a yet earlier period. Tregelles cites 
the Memphitic, of lower Egypt, as a work of 
" the third century " ; and the Thebaic, of up- 
per Egypt, as " probably older than the Mem- 
phitic." The former, called by the Arabs " that 
of the coast," Hug states is conformed to the 
older uncial manuscripts; as was natural from 
the location where it originated. The latter, 
regarded by Tregelles as the older, and of 
course having its origin prior by more than a 
century to the oldest uncials, follows, as Hug 
states, the text of the " koine ekdosis." 

The Ethiopic version is of especial interest ; 
since after the Greek conquest of Egypt, the 
Greek language, as Cicero (Orat. pro Arch.) 
states, was the classic tongue of the world. From 
Gaul and Britain, where Caesar in his Commen- 
taries says its letters were used by the Druids, 
even to Central Africa, the Greek was read ; as 
is illustrated in the book of Isaiah, read by the 


Ethiopian treasurer of Queen Candace, whose 
quotation by Luke follows word for word the 
Septuagint version. This fact is farther con- 
firmed by the Yoruba vocabulary prepared by 
Bowen, now in the Smithsonian collections; 
which vocabulary contains Greek terms still fa- 
miliar west of the Niger. Hug states that the 
Ethiopic version was made by a young soldier 
of Constantine's day, named Frumentius, who 
was taken captive by the Ethiopians, but made 
a favorite ; and who, after years of preparation, 
inaugurated the work of Bible-translation into 
the Ethiopic tongue. Hug finds by examina- 
tion that the gospels must have been translated 
from a variety of authorities, specially from the 
Egyptian text ; that the Acts was rendered into 
Ethiopic from both the Latin and Greek of the 
age; while the Epistles were conformed spe- 
cially to the Greek " koine ekdosis." 

The Arabic versions appeared very much la- 
ter than the other Oriental versions. They 
were made when the Muhammedan power had 
been established by the Arab race throughout 
Northern Africa and Southern Spain; and when 
A.D. 718 the Caliph Al-Walid prohibited Ara- 
bian Christians from using any other language 
in their worship than the Arabic. The ad- 
vanced culture of the Arab race, which culmi- 
nated only fifty years after this era under Ha. 


roun el-Rashid, led to the preparation of several 
Arabic versions, whose history is fully traced 
by Hug. The first was made from the Latin of 
Jerome, then current in Spain; the second from 
the Syriac Peschito ; whose Greek original, as 
we have seen, was the koine ekdosis of the sec- 
ond century ; while the third was from the 
Coptic. These three versions, however, as Hug 
exhaustively shows, were preceded by a version 
made for the Arabs south of Palestine ; who, 
under Valens, less than thirty years after Con- 
stantine's day, became Christians. This ver- 
sion, though interpolated afterwards by adher- 
ents of the later versions, was, Hug states, 
"translated from Constantinopolitan or Pales- 
tinian manuscripts; which are," he adds, " the 
basis of the text we are discussing." This text, 
then, substantially the "koine ekdosis" of Con- 
stantine's Greek transcribers, is, to those seek- 
ing the true inspired originals, of the utmost im- 
portance. It is worthy of special note, there- 
fore, that, while the Arabic version is given in 
full by Walton in his Polyglott under Charles 
II., while also Walton's researches are quoted 
by Hug as confirming his own, and while, too, 
that version sustains in the main the koine ekdo - 
sis as employed by King James' revisers and as 
still authoritative in the Greek Church,. Tregel- 
les makes no use of or reference to this impor- 
tant authority. 




While Hug is, as Gesenius states, the most 
exhaustive and impartial of investigators as to 
the " Greek text," he is also most discriminating 
as well as comprehensive in his researches and 
his statements as to the Latin versions. There 
were in existence, from the second to the fourth 
centuries, various Latin versions in different 
parts of the Roman Empire; as Hug shows, by 
quotations made from Latin fathers of different 
lands and ages. His citations are made from 
Irenaeus of the second and Hilary of the fourth 
century, whose field was in central Gaul, now 
France; again, from Ambrose at Milan in 
Northern Italy near the close of the fourth 
century ; and yet again, from Cyprian of the 
middle of the third, and from Augustine at the 
opening of the fifth century, both of whom 
were bishops at Carthage in Africa. Of all 
these early and widely scattered Latin versions 
Hug says : " The period at which these versions 
arose (the latter half of the second or the com- 
mencement of the third century) was .... the 
period of the koine ekdosis." It was at the 
opening of the fifth century, — just when the 
Roman Church was contending for an author- 
ity supreme in the Christian Church, as against 


the Greek Church whose claim was a double 
one, first as heir to the language of the inspired 
New Testament, and second as living at the new 
seat of the Empire fixed by Constantine, — it 
was at this era that Jerome, who spent thirty 
years in Palestine, the land of the Sacred Scrip- 
tures, gave his amended version to the Roman 
Church. As the several Latin versions then ex- 
isting had been prepared from manuscripts and 
versions so distant in location, Jerome, as Hug 
states, " was careful in the selection of his man- 
uscripts." Hug adds, " He therefore employed 
only copies of the period of the koine ekdosis ; 
and scrupulously avoided the editions of Lucian 
and Hesvchius ." 

The character and comparative authority of 
the Greek manuscripts at his day is fully stated 
by Jerome. Then, as at a later period, the 
three recensions of Hesychius, Lucian, and Ori- 
gen were brought into contrast with the " koine 
ekdosis " ; and then, as afterwards, copyists and 
translators, as Hug's careful examination shows, 
were controlled in their judgment, more or less, 
by a preference for one or the other of these 
guides. Jerome's own statements as to the Old 
Testament (adv. Rufin L. II.) are as follows : 
"Alexandria and Egypt prize (laudat) Hesy- 
chius as authority in their Septuagint versions. 
Constantinople, as far as Antioch, approves 


(probat) the copies (exemplaria) of Lucian the 
martyr. The provinces intermediate between 
these read (legunt) the Palestine codices ; which, 
elaborated by Origen, Eusebius and Pamphilus 
made common (vulgaverunt) ; and the whole 
world (totusque orbis) is at strife (compugnat) 
among themselves over this triple variation ." 
As before observed, variations in the Greek 
translation of the Old Testament were not vi- 
tal ; since the Hebrew text was preserved with 
unquestioned accuracy. As to the New Testa- 
ment manuscripts, regarding whose character as 
inspired, decision between contending authori- 
ties was vital, Jerome writes (Praef. in IV. 
Evang. ad Damasum) : " Now I speak of the 
New Testament ; in which, as in the entire Old 
Testament, a record fixed after the Seventy in- 
terpreters, it was not lawful (licuit) to emend 
anything, so in the New it was not good 
(profuit) to have amended, since the Scrip- 
ture, before translated into the tongues of many 
nations, might teach those things to be false 
which have been added." Here two facts are 
noteworthy. In the age and under circum- 
stances to form the best possible judgment, 
Jerome teaches: first, that the recensions of 
Hesychius and Lucian, specially relied on at the 
two extreme points farthest from the home of 
Jesus, were not reliable ; second, that the early 



versions were authoritative in fixing the Greek 
text. Hug, as a Catholic, regarding as " popes " 
the early " bishops " of the Roman Church, in- 
dicates how slowly Jerome's version gained con- 
fidence ; while, nevertheless, it was at last so re- 
ceived as to become the foundation of the Latin 
Vulgate. Hug states : " In the fifth century the 
Supreme pontiff at Rome, Leo the Great, still 
used the ancient version; and not the purest 
even of the copies of that." Hug adds : " The 
authority of Gregory the Great in the 6th cen- 
tury, first decided in favor of the edition of Je- 

The close resemblance to other Latin ver- 
sions of Jerome's version in most respects, as is 
true of all manuscripts and versions of the New 
Testament, which are the same in most of their 
pages, permitted designed or undesigned errors 
to creep in through copyists. Hence in the 8th 
century, when a new demand called for it, a re- 
vision was called for and was made. Christian- 
ity, which ruled Gaul, Britain and Ireland 
through the Franks, who from the East of the 
Rhine had taken possession of the country 
which from their name came to be called France, 
had at this era gradually penetrated into Ger- 
many. The Saxons resisting its spread, Charle- 
magne determined by force of arms to extend 
its sway. Alcuinus, called from Ireland to 



found the schools which have since become 
leading Universities in France and Germany, 
felt himself called to prepare a revised edition 
of Terome's Latin version of the New Testa- 
ment. Hug minutely describes an early manu- 
script of this, "king Charles' emendation," 
which he had examined. By numerous ex- 
amples Hug proceeds to show that " Alcuin in- 
tended nothing more than to restore Jerome's 
Bible as accurately as possible." This edition, 
introduced "by royal injunction," became the 
authorized version in France till the Council of 
Trent. Various discrepancies in the manuscript 
copies, pointed out by Robert Stephens and 
others, led to the discussions of the Council of 
Trent ; in which, Hug states : " it was even se- 
riously proposed to make use of a particular 
Hebrew and Greek manuscript and to translate 
it into Latin." In view of the renewed " con- 
troversies and innovations" which would be 
thus encouraged, says Hug : " It was most pru- 
dent to confirm the authority of the received 
Church-version." This decree of the Council 
of Trent Hug justifies, in a long discussion, on 
this ground : " As in civil affairs an authentic 
instrument is valid evidence, so in public relig- 
ious matters the Vulgate is a document from 
which valid argument may be drawn ; without 
prejudice, however, to other documents. But 



this is not a prescription of doctrine, and from 
its nature could not be; it is a decree on a 
point of discipline, having reference to the cir- 
cumstances of the times in which it was is- 


With a spirit of romance like that of Tischen- 
dorff, Hug traces the history of an ancient man- 
uscript " written in an old German dialect in 
letters of silver," long treasured, though un- 
read, at Prague; which was captured by the 
Swedes, carried to Stockholm, and after varied 
fortunes began to be studied by Swedish schol- 
ars; whose royal house, like that of the Danes, 
still boast their Gothic descent. Hug's long 
and graphic history of this manuscript brings 
him back to the origin of the Gothic version ; 
several copies of which have since come to 
light. After the Council of Nice, under Con- 
stantine, the Christian faith began to prevail 
among the Goths bordering on ancient Scythia. 
Under Valens, about A. D. 370, Ulphilas in- 
vented an alphabet and translated the Old and 
New Testament into his native Gothic. While 
evidence of connection with Latin versions occa- 


sionally appears, which fact Hug illustrates by 
numerous citations, he adds : " The translation 
is made from the Greek text; .... from a 
Greek manuscript belonging to the Constanti- 
nopolitan recension." Though corruptions have 
crept into some copies of this version, it is one 
of special authority, in the main, as sustaining 
the generally received Greek text. 


Three of the leading writers, whose combined 
researches must guide the impartial student, 
namely, Poole, Hug and Tregelles, state the 
principles which have guided Christian schol- 
ars of all ages in the determination of the true 
text of the New Testament Greek Scriptures. 
The grounds of Poole's judgment, though not 
formally brought together, are learned from his 
repeated arguments in discussing especially the 
omissions in certain Greek uncial manuscripts 
and in some versions. Thus as to the omission 
of the doxology in the Lord's Prayer, found in 
the uncial manuscripts, now indicated as C. and 
D., which he had examined, as also in the Latin 
of Jerome and of the Vulgate, Poole states 



these principles. The doxology is found in the 
" mother language " ; meaning in the Greek text 
as received to this day in the Greek and Ori- 
ental Church. As to the omission of the dox- 
ology in the uncial manuscripts, he argues that 
an insertion in the sacred text necessarily im- 
plies studied invention and designed alteration ; 
while an omission implies merely unintentional 
neglect. As to the versions the Latin is but 
one of many " daughters " ; and that one more 
remote from its "mother" than the Oriental 
versions which retain it. As to the Latin fa- 
thers, who omit the doxology in quoting the 
Lord's Prayer, it may have been, he suggests, 
Luke's briefer statement of that prayer which 
they had in mind ; while, on the other hand, he 
urges that the quotation of that doxology by 
leading Greek fathers is positive, and not like 
the Latin omission of it, mere negative testi- 

Hug presents more formally his " Principles 
of Criticism" in a chapter following his ex- 
haustive discussion of the Greek manuscripts 
and of the varied ancient versions. He is em- 
phatic in rebuking those who, from doctrinal or 
philological prejudice, fix on a class of manu- 
scripts or on a selection of variations in differing 
classes of manuscripts of versions and of patris- 
tic citations which chance to favor their previ- 


ous opinions. He says : " It has ceased to be 
the case that a scholar, irresolute which of the 
multitude he should follow, can, according to 
his taste, or his preference for a particular manu- 
script, or a liking for some peculiarity, some 
new various readings in a particular Codex, or 
other grounds not at all better, select and form 
a text which may be destroyed by the next 
editor ; who does it only to see the same right 
exercised upon him by his successor." 

Hug classifies all the authorities, including 
Greek manuscripts, versions and patristic cita- 
tions, under four heads ; those following (1) the 
koine ekdosis, (2) the Hesychian recension, (3) 
the Lucian recension, (4) the recension of Ori- 
gen; and he enumerates the manuscripts and 
the versions or parts of versions which respect- 
ively follow these four classes of authorities. 
Among these the following are important as 
guides in forming a just decision as to the omis- 
sions found in the Canterbury revision. The 
text of the " koine ekdosis " rules the Gospels, 
Acts, Catholic and Pauline Epistles in the codi- 
ces D, Cambridge and Parisian ; it prevails 
throughout the Syriac Peschito and pervades 
the Syriac of Charkel ; and it controlled in the 
early Latin versions. On the other hand the 
Hesychian recension guided the Egyptian copy- 
ists in the Gospels of codices B and C, or the 


Vatican and Ephrseem manuscripts ; and also in 
the Acts and in all the Epistles of codices A, B, 
C; or the Alexandrine, Vatican and Ephrseem 
manuscripts. Thus, according to this most com- 
prehensive as well as logical collator, the uncials , 
now trusted as supreme authority, were made 
from a text which Origen, and after him every 
branch of the Christian Church has regarded as 
influenced by doctrinal views opposed to the 
Divine nature and to the expiatory sacrifice of 
Jesus Christ. Hug had not the third of the 
three most complete uncials, the Sinaitic ; but 
Tischendorff's collation of the three shows their 
common character . 

Recurring to the "common text," Hug says : 
" The koine ckdosis, as we have shown, exhibits 
the ancient text ; but with many alterations 
which it underwent during the second and a 
part of the third century." This statement, as 
to the " koine ekdosis," the unbiassed student 
perceives, has received from Hug this qualifica- 
tion only to prepare the way for the author's 
defence of the omissions incorporated into the 
Latin Vulgate ; which, as we shall see Hug 
tacitly admits, follow the Egyptian uncials and 
the Hesychian recension. The three recensions 
of Lucian, Hesychius, and Origen were all made 
nearly at the same time, at the close of the 
third century. The settled judgment of the 


Greek Church, in the beginning of the fourth 
century, established the text of the manuscripts 
prepared by Constantine's order ; and that early 
decision as to the respective merit of each recen- 
sion as compared with the "koine ekdosis," is 
still authoritative in all branches of the Oriental 

With great elaborateness Hug lays down rules 
to guide in deciding as to interpolations and 
omissions in the true Greek text. He recog- 
nizes as undeniable the fact that the "koine 
ekdosis" was the standard when the several 
recensions and versions were made; and that, 
therefore, when all agree, which is the case in 
the great body of the different manuscripts, the 
true text is assured. Interpolations, which are 
rare, have arisen mainly from " harmonies "; in 
which the fuller text of one evangelist might 
come to be inserted by a careless copyist in 
another; while, in cases very rare, marginal 
notes, not belonging to the text, may have been 
incorporated. A careful comparison of the 
Egyptian uncials reveals cases of both these 
kinds; though they are so infrequent in com- 
parison with the omissions as to give special 
weight to Poole's rule on this point. The causes 
which have led to the numerous omissions are 
mainly these: First, where one clause ended 
with words similar to those in a clause follow- 


ing, the eye of the copyist, especially of the me- 
chanical Egyptian copyists, wandered past the 
intervening clause. Second, omissions were 
made intentionally, when synonymous expres- 
sions followed each other and were regarded by 
the copyist as expletives. Third, tautological 
expressions, common to Hebrew writers, seemed 
to Greek copyists, of limited experience, to be 
unimportant, and so were omitted. To every 
thoughtful student it must be apparent that 
these causes for omissions would be specially 
operative in the E gyptian copyists , as they are 
faithfully characterized by Hug ; men ignorant 
of both the subject and wording of what they 
transcribed ; not discriminating between the in- 
spired and uninspired Christian writings; and 
working as paid laborers on what had for them 
no interest, since even the language of the rec- 
ords was not understood by many of their num- 
ber. Hug's rules for restoration of such omis- 
sions are substantially these : In the first case 
" what is omitted must be restored to the text," 
without hesitation. In the second and third 
cases, the omission of one copy must be re- 
stored from an accordant text in other copies. 

The elaborately considered and for the most 
part impartially balanced decisions of Hug, the 
Roman Catholic, so in keeping with those of 
the earlier judgment of the Protestant Poole, 


must rule in the close of the nineteenth cen- 
tury; for their rule has been legitimate alike in 
Origen of the third, in Jerome of the fifth, in 
Poole of the seventeenth and in Hug at the 
opening of the present century. The legitimacy 
of this ruling is made demonstrative by the fact 
that the " common text," subjected in every im- 
portant age of the Christian Church to precisely 
the same tests which now are trying it, has con- 
stantly received new and growing confidence 
among the earnest Christian scholars of each 
succeeding era of investigation. 


The carefully considered rules of Tregelles are 
laid down under nine heads; the sixth of which 
has six subdivisions. These are stated in his 
own words where their ruling is at variance with 
those of other judges. (1) Where authorities 
agree the text is assured. (2) If authorities 
differ but slightly, assurance is little shaken. 
(3) " If the reading of the ancient authorities 
in general is unanimous, there can be little 
doubt it should be followed, whatever may be 
the later testimonies ; for it is most improbable 
that the independent testimonies of early man- 


uscripts, versions and Fathers should accord 
with regard to something entirely groundless." 
(4) A reading found in versions alone can claim 
but little authority. (5) A reading found in pa- 
tristic citations alone is of still less authority. 
(6) Where authorities are divided, " other 
things being equal," these rules must guide, 
(a) An early citation, in express terms, may 
alone be decisive. In cases where decision can- 
not be thus assured, the following guides may 
be successively sought and trusted ; (6) if one 
of two readings accords with a parallel passage ; 
(c) if one gives an amplification found elsewhere ; 
{d) if one of two seems to avoid a difficulty ; (e) 
if one reading has been copied by others ; (/) 
if well-known principles of variation can be ap- 
plied. (7) When certainty is unattainable, the 
doubtful passage should be retained, but put in 
brackets. (8) When it is certain that a reading 
was received in the second or third century, this 
outweighs all later authorities. (9) Readings 
sustained by the larger number of authorities 
may be unsustained by the superior authorities. 
These rules of Tregelles call for attention less 
in their statement than in their application. 
Rule 3 is at variance with Poole and Hug when 
the oldest existing Greek manuscripts, seen to 
be the Egyptian uncials never trusted by the 
Greeks themselves, are accepted as supreme au- 


thority. Under rule 6, item a, such students 
of the early Christian writers as Poole and Hug 
think they have found in early Christian writers 
express quotations from the New Testament 
records which would on Tregelles' principle set 
aside the authority _of the Egyptian uncials. 
As to rule 6, item e, it should be carefully ob- 
served that while Tregelles applies it to hun- 
dreds of cursive manuscripts, which he' regards 
as copied one from another, he forgets to apply 
it to the Egyptian uncials ; all of which Hug 
finds to be but copies of a class. Under rule 8 
the argument of Poole and Hug, based on the 
acceptance " from time immemorial " of the 
"koine ekdosis," or "common text," by the 
Greek as well as the combined Oriental and 
Western Churches, is a testimony which the 
Egyptian uncials have never been supposed to 
countervail; and these testimonies show that 
the reading of the second and third century is 
preserved in that " common text ." As to num- 
ber 9, where the reference to the numberless 
" cursive " Greek manuscripts is apparent, this 
fact is specially to be noted. Hug, as before 
mentioned, specially describes six only ; begin- 
ning with the commonly recognized No. I and 
ending with No. 579. Tregelles cites in his 
rules only Nos. 1, 33 and 69; whose original 
text, though oft corrected, as his use of them 


shows, seems to sustain his view of the Egyptian 
uncials as authoritative. As to cursive No. I, 
the only cursive manuscript cited in common by 
Hug and Tregelles, Hug traces its history; 
showing that the copy was made in the time of 
Leo V. ; who, though he ruled as Pope only a 
few months, had special influence at the close 
of the 9th and at the beginning of the 10th 
century. Of its text, conformed manifestly to 
the spirit of the age, Hug says: "The text of 
the Gospels is very different from the text of the 
rest of the manuscript." Tregelles states as to 
it : "A manuscript in the Library at Basle, con- 
taining all the N. Test, but the Apocalypse; 
but only of importance in the text of the Gos- 
pels. Of the tenth century: examined by 
many, and collated independently by Tregelles 
and Roth ; when these collations disagree l B or i T 
indicates the respective collators." As to the 
text to which this cursive manuscript was orig- 
inally conformed, Hug states that in "the Gos- 
pels " it followed the " koine ekdosis." Its use 
by Tregelles is illustrated on Matt, xviii. 1 1 ; 
where it is indicated that the statement, " For 
the Son of man is come to save the lost," is 
omitted from the original text of this cursive 
manuscript, but was afterwards inserted by a 
second corrector of the manuscript. The fact 
that Tregelles differed from Roth in his reading 


of the manuscript as a collator shows how liable 
to err the modern examiner as well as the orig- 
inal copyist may prove. The setting aside by 
Tregelles of the authority of the hundreds of 
cursive manuscripts trusted as reliable by the 
world of Christian scholars in the past, the spe- 
cial devotion of such a mind as that of Tregelles 
to three selected copies regarded by him as sup- 
porting the Egyptian uncials, and the fact that 
the judgment of Hug as to the actual character 
of that special cursive manuscript differs so ma- 
terially from that of Tregelles — these facts jus- 
tify certainly the doubt expressed by the Bishop 
of St. Andrews as to the actual "consensus of 
scholarship " which now demands the omission 
of this and other passages . 


As intimated, the common reader of the Can- 
terbury revision is specially arrested by the 
otnission of passages familiar in the reading of 
the New Testament in the received version pre- 
pared for and accepted by that people who un- 
der James I. had a specially independent, criti- 
cal, intelligent and earnest body of Bible stu- 


dents as leaders. Yet more, the thorough stu- 
dent of Hug, the most logical as well as com- 
prehensive examiner of the ancient authorities 
which fix the text, is specially intelligent as to 
the origin of these omissions; finding them 
mainly in the Egyptian uncials. Still yet more 
the casual reader of Tischcndorff's reprint of the 
common English version finds that all the omis- 
sions introduced by the new revisers, and very 
many more, are those as to which the three 
leading uncials, the Sinaitic, the Vatican and 
the Alexandrine, are frequently not in accord. 
And, yet once more, the careful analyzer of the 
omissions and notes of Tregelles in his revised 
Greek text will observe when and where his 
conscientious and often perplexed mind sought 
a consistent judgment in cases when and where 
trust in the uncials forbid the attainment of 

Among the very numerous omissions found 
in the three leading uncials, the following four- 
teen are specially important for consideration. 
The utter impossibility of harmonizing author- 
ities, and of securing consistency in the omis- 
sions allowed by Tregelles and the revisers who 
have followed him , appear at every step in the 
consideration of these leading and larger omis- 
sions. These omissions are (1) Matt. vi. 13, the 
Doxology in the Lord's Prayer ; (2) Matt. xii. 


47, the statement of a bystander as to Christ's 
mother and brethren; (3) Matt. xvii. 21, the 
declaration, " This kind goeth not out but by 
prayer and fasting"; (4) Matt, xviii. 11, the 
statement, " The Son of man is come to save 
that which was lost " ; (5) Matt, xxiii. 14, the 
statement to the Pharisees, "Ye devour wid- 
ows' houses," etc.; (6) Matt. xxiv. 35, the dec- 
laration, " Heaven and earth shall pass away," 
etc.; (7) Mark vi. 11, the reference to Sodom 
and Gomorrah ; (8) Mark xiii. 14, the reference 
to the prophet Daniel; (9) Luke iv. 18, the 
clause " to heal the broken-hearted " ; (10) John 
v. 4, the record as to the angel's disturbing the 
pool; (11) John vii. 53 to viii. 11, the account 
of the woman taken in adultery; (12) Acts viii. 
37, the confession of the Ethiopian at his bap- 
tism; (13) Acts ix. 6, the words "It is hard. 
.... What wilt thou have me to do?" and 
(14) 1st John v. 7, the declaration, "There are 
three that bear record in heaven," etc. 

The testimonies of the leading authorities as 
to these fourteen passages are as follows : First, 
the "koine ekdosis," or "common text," now 
recognized in the Greek and Oriental Churches, 
which guided both the Roman and Protestant 
revisers and translators at the Reformation, re- 
ceives them all as belonging to the inspired 
original text. Second, the uncial, or oldest 


Greek manuscripts, seen to have been mainly a 
class of copies made in Egypt, have this testi- 
mony. Of the six in Matthew the Alexandrine, 
regarded by Tregelles as properly ranked first 
in authority, gives no testimony; since that 
portion of the manuscript was lost before it 
came to the British capital. Their varied testi- 
mony as to the other eight will appear, each in 
its place. 

Matt. vi. 13 is omitted by the Vatican, Si- 
naitic and Cambridge manuscripts, D, and by 
Jerome and the Latin Vulgate ; while it is re- 
tained by all the cursive Greek manuscripts, one 
excepted, No. 33, which generally follows the 
Egyptian uncials, and by the Syriac Peschito, 
made in the second century. It is omitted by 
Tregelles and the Canterbury revisers. 

Beside the testimony of manuscripts, versions 
and ancient citations, the doxology in the 
Lord's Prayer has a transcendent interest and 
importance, as well as an historic confirmation, 
from its connection with forms of prayer as used 
in all ages and branches of the Christian Church, 
except the modern Roman Catholic Church. It 
is found in the liturgies of both Chrysostom and 
Basil, used from time immemorial in all the 
branches of the Greek and Oriental Churches : 
it was incorporated into the forms of prayer of 
every branch of the Protestant Church ; it is in- 


serted in the liturgy of the English Church in 
all services in which the people join, even in the 
communion service ; while in private services, as 
baptism, it is omitted in conformity with the 
abridged form given by Luke. There is ground 
for belief that its omission from the Latin Gospel 
and Roman liturgy arose because of the exclu- 
sion of the people from a share in the public 
services, especially in the eucharist. 

Matt. xii. 47 is omitted by the Vatican and 
the later Parisian manuscript, L, and also by the 
original Sinaitic manuscript, though inserted by 
its Greek correctors. It is found in all the other 
important uncials, and in all the cursive manu- 
scripts ; as also in the Syriac Peschito, in Jerome 
and the Latin Vulgate. It is retained, contrary 
to his own rule followed elsewhere, by Tre- 
gelles ; and also by the Canterbury revisers. 

Matt. xvii. 21 is omitted in the Vatican man- 
uscript, also in the Sinaitic before correction, 
and in cursive No. 33. It is retained in the 
early Parisian, C, and in the Cambridge, D, un- 
cials; also in all, save No. 33, of the cursive 
manuscripts ; as also in the Syriac Peschito, in 
Jerome and in the Vulgate. Though retained 
and put in brackets as doubtful in his first and 
latest collations by Tregelles, it is entirely omit- 
ted from the text of the Canterbury revisers. 

Matt, xviii. 1 1 is omitted in the Vatican and 


Sinaitic manuscripts; in the later Parisian, L, 
before correction ; in cursive 33 and cursive 1 
before correction. It is found in the Cambridge 
manuscript, D, in Tischendorff's fragments 
(Greek Pi) in the later Parisian, L, as corrected ; 
also in the cursives generally; and also in the 
Syriac, in Jerome and the Latin Vulgate. It is 
omitted by Tregelles and by the Canterbury re- 

Matt, xxiii. 14 is omitted by the Vatican, the 
Sinaitic, the Cambridge, D, the later Parisian, L, 
uncials ; also by cursives 1 and 33, and by Je- 
rome ; it is found in not less than eleven later 
uncials and in the cursive manuscripts generally, 
even in 69 cited by Tregelles; also in the Syriac 
Peschito and the Latin Vulgate. It is omitted 
by Tregelles and by the Canterbury revisers. 

Matt. xxiv. 35 is omitted only by the Sinaitic 
among the uncial manuscripts, and that before 
correction. It is found in the Vatican manu- 
script, and in Jerome and the Syriac and Latin 
Vulgate. It is retained by Tregelles and the 
Canterbury revisers. 

No thoughtful and impartial student, in this 
survey, can fail to note these facts ; and facts 
must decide conclusions. First, these six of the 
fourteen larger omissions found in the Egyptian 
copies are met in the early chapters of Mat- 
thew; at the beginning of the work of copy- 


ists ignorant of the Greek language ; and just 
where they would be most likely to fall into er- 
ror from inexperience. Second, all these omis- 
sions are incapable of confirmation from the Al- 
exandrine manuscript, which Tregelles regards 
the most authoritative, since that portion of the 
manuscript is lost. Third, five only of the six 
omissions occur in the Vatican manuscript ; 
showing that either the Sinaitic or Vatican, 
which are at variance, is in error. This fact in- 
dicates the unreliableness of both these manu- 
scripts at the very beginning of the work of in- 
competent copyists. Fourth, two out of six of 
these omissions in the Sinaitic manuscript were 
corrected by insertions, made while the manu- 
scripts were in the hands of Oriental Greeks. 
Fifth, the later uncials, in one case at least, are 
at variance with the older. Sixth, all the cursives, 
save three which Tregelles alone cites, and evi- 
dently because of their conformity to his pre- 
judged conclusion, namely, Nos. 1, 33 and 69, 
have in their text these omitted passages ; and 
one of these, as Hug indicates, was made under 
circumstances which throw doubt on their excep- 
tional character as a class. Seventh, the oldest 
translation, the Syriac Peschito, in four at least, if 
not in all of the six passages, is opposed to these 
omissions. The manuscripts from which this ver- 
sion was made were two centuries older than 


the oldest uncials ; and, therefore, on Tregelles' 
own principle, are of superior authority. Eighth, 
in three out of six of the omissions cited, the 
passages are found in the Latin of Jerome ; and 
in four out of six in the Latin Vulgate ; indi- 
cating the final decision of Roman Catholic 
scholars down to the Reformation. Ninth, as 
the corrections made by early Greek scholars in 
the Egyptian copies are in accord with the 
" koine ekdosis," followed by the translators of 
the Reformed Church, and still authoritative in 
the Greek and Oriental Churches, there is. rea- 
son for the conclusion : that, as now, so in the 
age when those corrections were made, the text 
used in King James' version was in all ages au- 
thority among Christian scholars, to whom the 
original Greek of the New Testament was ver- 


In the specially full, though concise Gospel 
of Mark, two marked omissions occur; while 
in the two longer and specially historic records 
of Luke, which were the standard with Marcion 
in the second century, only three extended 
omissions call forth discussion. 


Mark vi. 1 1, found in the cursive manuscripts 
which have guided all branches of the ancient 
and modern Church, is found also in the Alex- 
andrine uncial and in the Syriac Peschito ver- 
sion. It is omitted by the Vatican and Sinaitic 
uncials, by Jerome and the Vulgate, and by 
Tregelles and the Canterbury revisers. The 
fact that the Alexandrine manuscript has it in 
the text of the Egyptian copyist, and not in- 
serted alone by a Greek corrector, is in the line 
of Hug's positive proofs that it belonged to the 
original " koine ekdosis " ; whose readings are 
unquestionable authority when thus attested. 
The acknowledged testimony that the three 
most complete Egyptian uncials, the Alexan- 
drine, Vatican and Sinaitic, belong to a class, 
coming under the ninth rule of Tregelles, is 
proof positive that the omission of Mark vi. 1 1 
from ' two of these was an error of the copyist ; 
for the insertion by one shows that it was in the 
text from which the copyist transcribed ; while 
its omission by two shows oversight in these two 
copyists. . 

Mark xiii. 14, precisely like Mark vi. 11, is 
found in all the cursives accepted in the Greek 
and all other branches of the Christian Church ; 
it is in the Alexandrine uncial ; and it is incor- 
porated into the oldest version, the Syriac 
Peschito. It is omitted by Jerome and in the 


Latin Vulgate; and also in the Vatican and 
Sinaitic uncials. The conclusion is precisely 
the same as that necessarily following from the 
same testimonies relating to Mark vi. 1 1. Tre- 
gelles and the revisers, who follow him, omit it. 
Luke iv. 18 has, with a single marked excep- 
tion, the same testimony, as the two passages 
omitted in Mark's Gospel. It is in the " com- 
mon text," generally followed in all the 
branches of the Christian Church. It is omit- 
ted by the Vatican and Sinaitic uncials, and by 
Jerome. It is found, however, in the Alexan- 
drine uncial, and in the Syriac Peschito; and 
also in the Latin Vulgate. It is omitted by 
Tregelles, and in the version which follows his 
text ; though the omission unquestionably 
comes under his rule 6, item d. The " diffi- 
culty," which the omission seeks to "avoid," 
is the fact that the clause " to heal the broken- 
hearted " is not in the Hebrew text, though it 
is found in the Greek translations from which 
Luke, as a Greek scholar, almost always quotes. 
The explanation, cited in every age by Christian 
scholars, is legitimate; that Luke, like Paul, 
quotes for two reasons from the then univer- 
sally read version of the Old Testament ; first 
because it was authoritative with the Greeks 
whom both Luke and Paul addressed ; second 
because in this, as in many like citations of 


Luke and Paul, the Greek translators by their 
amplified statement presented really the senti- 
ment condensed in the words or context of the 
concise Hebrew ; using a paraphrase essential 
in order that the Greek might gain the Hebrew 

Acts viii. 37, omitted from the Alexandrine, 
Vatican and Sinaitic uncials, and by Jerome, is 
found in the universally received text of the 
cursive manuscripts and in the text of the 
Greek Church. It is quoted by Irenaeus, the 
Greek writer of the second century, and by 
Cyprian, the Latin of the third century; and it 
is a part of the text of the Latin Vulgate as 
well as of all Protestant versions. Yet Tre- 
gelles and the revisers omit it. 

The important omission in Acts ix. 6 has its 
main support in the Egyptian uncials ; as the 
Alexandrine, Vatican, Sinaitic and Ephraeem ; 
and the Syriac Peschito. It is found in the 
" common " Greek text, in the cursives gener- 
ally, in 31 before correction, in the Latin Vul- 
gate, etc. Here Tregelles quotes Griesbach, in- 
dicating the leader in the school of modern ad- 
vocates for the Egyptian uncials. Tregelles 
and the English revisers omit the passage. 




As already indicated, while six of the ten 
omitted passages are from Matthew's Gospel 
and two from Mark's Gospel, the most impor- 
tant of all are from the Gospel and principal 
epistle of John. The contrast between these 
eleven omissions and the three in Luke's writ- 
ings has a cause. A peculiar significance is 
here suggested as to the statements of Hug 
that the early variations of manuscripts, noted 
in Origen's replies to Marcion and his followers, 
arose in part from philosophic objections to the 
Divinity of Christ, and in part from an effort to 
harmonize the Gospels; especially to conform 
Matthew's Gospel to Luke. The student of 
Tregelles will perceive in the application of his 
rules to Matt. vi. 13 as compared with Luke xi. 
4, and again of Matt, xxiii. 14 with Luke xx. 
47, the influence of this doubtful principle of 
harmonizing other Gospels with Luke ; an idea 
urged by Marcion in the second century. In 
each of the three omissions, found in John's 
writings, the ruling spirit of Alexandria in the 
fourth century, when these copies were made, 
as it has been apparent to both Roman and 
Protestant Bible students amid all their disa- 
greements since the Reformation — the Alexan- 


drine controversies as to the supernatural in 
Christ's person and work must be kept in 

John v. 4 is the first of these omissions. It 
is omitted by the Sinaitic and Vatican manu- 
scripts, by the older Parisian before correction, 
by the Cambridge, D, and by cursive 33. It is 
retained in the Alexandrine uncial, in the cor- 
rected older and in the later Parisian, in the 
Ttschendorff fragments, in all the cursives ex- 
cept 33, in the Syriac Peschito, in Jerome and 
in the Latin Vulgate. Yet it is omitted by 
Tregelles and by the Canterbury revisers. 

John vii. 53 to viii. 11 is the second and most 
extended omission from John's Gospel. It is 
omitted by the Sinaitic, the Alexandrine, the 
Vatican, the older Parisian, and four later un- 
cials, and by cursive 33 ; but in the Alexan- 
drine and older Parisian and two of the later 
uncials, that is in half of the uncials which omit 
the passage, there is a blank space indicating 
that something is omitted; the text being' 
erased or its copying deferred. It is found in 
the Cambridge, D, and other uncials, in the 
cursives generally, in the Latin Vulgate, as it 
is in the "koine ekdosis" of the Greek Church ; 
while Greek and Latin fathers, cited by Poole 
and Tregelles, refer to the omitted narrative 
as found in John's Gospel. It is omitted as 


spurious by Tregelles ; and it is put in brackets 
as doubtful by the English revisers. 

I John v. 7 is the most disputed of the omis- 
sions of the uncials and of the new English re- 
vision. The passage is omitted in the Alexan- 
drine, Vatican and Sinaitic uncials; from two 
later uncials, K and L; from some cursive man- 
uscripts; from the Syriac Peschito and some 
other Oriental versions ; as also from some of 
the early Latin versions. It is found in most 
of the cursive manuscripts, in the " koine ekdo- 
sis " as preserved by the modern Greek Church ; 
in the Latin Vulgate ; and in all the Protestant 
and Roman Catholic versions called out at the era 
of the Reformation. Several of the Greek and 
Latin fathers before Constantine's day, cited by 
Tregelles, quote the passage with more or less 

Since this latter passage was brought into dis- 
pute before the translations by Protestant Re- 
formers were made, it is fitting that the argu- 
ment of Poole should be cited in brief. The 
survey may indicate that the revisers of that 
earlier day had in possession authorities more 
complete, as Poole's statement shows, than 
many scholars of the present day have sup- 
posed. Poole presents first the evidence cited 
against the passage, thus : " This verse neither 
the Syrian nor the ancient Latin interpreters 


nor many Greek codices, read ; nor many of the. 
ancients, as Nazianzen, Athanasius; Didymus, 
Chrysostom, Cyril, Hilary, Augustine, and Beda; 
who, since they were writing against the Arians, 
would not have omitted this passage if they had 
believed it to be genuine. Also the Council of 
Nice, when it proved the Trinity against Arius 
from John x. 30 and 1 John v. 6, yet omitted 
this verse 7, which is most in point. Either 
they did not read it, or they passed it as sus- 
pected and of doubtful reliableness." In reply- 
ing to this argument, Poole presents these facts : 
" The most ancient and approved copies (exem- 
plaria) read it"; meaning by "exemplaria" 
doubtless the accepted cursives. He proceeds, 
stating among these exemplars: (1) "All the 
Greek codices in the time of Jerome, he attest- 
ing this in prolog. Epist. Canon ad Eustochi- 
um." (2) The " codex Britannicus " ; whose au- 
thority led Erasmus to restore it in succeeding, 
though omitted in former editions. (3) The 
"codices which the authors of the Complu- 
tensian edition used A.D. 1517." (4) "The cod- 
ices of Laurentius Valla." (5) " The codices of 
Robert Stephens," most of which had it. Poole 
then cites the fathers who quote the passage ; 
among whom are Cyprian, " who wrote before 
Arius was born, in the third century " ; Tertul- 
lian contra Praxeam ; Athanasius ad Theop. on 


the " united deity of the Trinity, lib. I. " ; to 
which list Poole adds several later fathers, in- 
cluding Jerome. He adds: "These words 
could have been omitted by oversight, through 
a mistake of the copyist ; whose eye, when he 
had transcribed the passage up to these words, 
1 there are three that bear record,' — whose eye, 
wandering, might have passed over to v. 8, 
where the same words are repeated ; and so 
from want of care he might have passed beyond 
this verse. Yet more, as to the question 
whether this verse was taken out by the Ari- 
ans or added by the Orthodox, the latter is 
much more probable." In a long argument he 
sustains this latter proposition ; the main points 
of evidence being these. First, to omit implies 
only excusable oversight, while to insert implies 
designed deceit and direct invention of a human 
statement as God's word. Second, the opposers 
of the doctrine had more reason for omission 
than its upholders for addition, since enough 
other texts remained to support their view. 
Third, the opposers, regarding the New Testa- 
ment as only human, did not feel the motive to 
fidelity which inspired believers in the Divine 
authority of the Scriptures; and hence they 
did change the text, as is attested by Ambrose 
De fide 5, 7 and Dc Spiritu Sancto ; also in 
Socrates Hist. Eccl. vii. 32 and Tripart. xii. 4. 


Fourth, the political power, under Constantius 
and Valens, gave popularity to the text which 
favored Arianism. This lengthy statement of 
Poole, founded on testimonies to which the re- 
searches of Tregelles have added little and from 
which much has been omitted, call for a careful 
consideration of the real claims of this most dis- 
puted passage to still continued confidence. 

As one among many general testimonies 
which sustain the " common text " in retaining 
all the fourteen passages above considered, Rev. 
Garabcd Kaprielian, for several years a native 
pastor near Constantinople, states : that the an- 
cient Armenian version, used now by the Cath- 
olic Armenian people, omits only the two cited 
in Mark's Gospel ; while the modern version has 
restored those two passages. 


The most superficial reader of Tischendorff 's 
edition of King James' version will observe that 
at the bottom of every page there are generally 
noted a score or more of variations from the re- 
ceived text found in one or more of the three 
leading uncials, the Sinaitic, the Vatican and 
the Alexandrine. Choosing his own mode of 


indicating these manuscripts, since the old des- 
ignation controlled by English scholars gave no 
place in the English alphabet for his newly dis- 
covered manuscript, Tischendorff reverses tlje 
order of Tregelles, making his own first in au- 
thority and the Alexandrine last ; indicating 
always the agreement of these three most com- 
plete as well as most ancient uncials by the first 
letters of their names ; writing S. V. A. where 
they are all agreed. 

As a sample of these numberless variations, 
and of the disagreements of the three among 
themselves, the following illustrations may be 
traced and weighed. Passing by the Gospel of 
Matthew, where because of the loss of the Al- 
exandrine only two can be compared, and 
where as we have observed six out of ten omit- 
ted verses occur, these may be noted. In John, 
1st chap., there are ten clauses omitted ; in the 
6th chap, seventeen. In Acts, 1st to ioth 
chaps., there are 180 variations; of which 105 
are marked S. V. A. ; while, of the remaining 
75, all are marked S, 40 are marked V, and 55 
A. In John's 1st Epistle 58 variations are 
found in the Sinaitic, 45 are found in the Vati- 
can, 56 in the Alexandrine; while the varia- 
tions in which the three agree are but 19 in 
number, including the disputed passage 1st 
John v. 7. It would be hard to conceive a 


stronger testimony that these Egyptian-copied 
Greek manuscripts are utterly unreliable as au- 
thority in deciding on the true Greek text. 

Yet 'more ; nearly all these variations are 
omissions. There are a few variations in the 
form of words ; as in that cited by the Bishop 
of St. Andrews where in Luke ii. 14 "eudo- 
kias," the genitive, is used for " eudokia," the 
nominative; making the angels' chant to be 
" peace on earth to men of good will," instead of 
" peace on earth, good will to men." The addi- 
tions, on the other hand, are so few that pages 
may be scanned before one is met ; and then it 
is of a kind that implies carelessness rather than 
designed invention. The most marked testi- 
mony, supporting Poole's view as to the prior 
judgment that additions have not been made in 
the common text, but that omissions have oc- 
curred in the uncial manuscripts, is Tischen- 
dorff's own ingenuous admission. Thus on 
Acts xxiii. 16, where the Alexandrine has 
" synagogue " for " castle," Tischendorff writes : 
"a mere error." Again, on Acts xxvii. 37, 
where the Vatican has "two hundred" only, 
and the Alexandrine has " two hundred and 
fifteen," while the Sinaitic, his own, has " two 
hundred and sixteen," in accord with the com- 
mon text, Tischendorff writes : " a mere error." 
So in 1st John, 5th chap., all studded with va- 


nations in Tischendorff 's margin, the Alexan- 
drine omits the entire clause i John v. 15 : 
" And if we know that he hear us" ; on which 
Tischendorff, all unconscious of its bearing on 
the omission of the 7th verse just above, writes : 
" a mere error." Chiefly, however, in the text 
of the Revelation his admissions as to errors of 
the three leading uncials are perfectly destruc- 
tive of their reliableness as authority. Thus at 
Rev. iii. 15, where A. omits the clause: "J 
would thou wert cold or hot," he writes: "a 
mere error." Again at v. 4 his note is: "A. 
omits this verse: a mere error." Again at vi. 
8, in which vicinity the cited variations are like 
the " hail-stones," there referred to, in number, 
Tischendorff notes as follows one of the rare ad- 
ditions of the uncials: "A. was called Immor- 
tal ; an error." Again at xiii. 7 is the note : 
"A. omits, 'And it was given .... to overr 
come them * ; an error." Having thus found 
the Alexandrine manuscript, most trusted by 
Tregcllcs, so unreliable, Tischendorff comes to 
a portion of the Revelation where his own man- 
uscript must, for consistency's sake, be made to 
suffer lack of authority more than the Alexan- 
drine. On Rev. xviii. 21 he has the note: "A. 
An angel took up; S. And an angel took up 
a mighty stone like a great stone ; an error." 
Ayain at xix. 2 comes the note : " A. which 


judged ; a mere error T Finally, as if the woe 
on the one "adding" or "taking away," re- 
corded Rev. xx ii. 18, 19, began to rise to view 
and to denounce these manuscripts, the work 
oY inexperienced Egyptians, as coming under 
its malediction, Tischendorff ingenuously, if not 
reverently, makes this note, as to a whole verse 
omitted from his admired manuscript: Rev. 
xx. 5 : " S. omits But the rest .... were fin- 
ished ; a mere error" It is almost incompre- 
hensible, when on almost every chapter Tisch- 
endorff has noted a score or more of like varia- 
tions and omissions in the three trusted uncials, 
that their real character had not dawned on his 
mind. Nothing but the utter blindness that 
takes possession of ambitious explorers in the 
fields of science, so often unveiled in the French 
Academy by Humboldt and Cuvier, and in the 
American Academy by Henry and Agassiz, can 
account for the ingenuous frankness and the un- 
conscious inconsistency of the Sinaitk explorer. 


The labor of exhaustive collation attempted 
by Trcgelles was exhausting, and necessarily so, 
to its author. Many portions of his work 


show that his collation was left incomplete, and 
his judgment therefore immature. At some 
points, as the works of Poole and of Hug 
attest, the research of Tregelles fell behind that 
of his predecessors, as also behind that of 
TischendorrT,. his co-laborer; certain portions 
of whose conclusions Tregelles approved, while 
much of' his labor he appropriated. While 
many passages illustrate these facts as to the 
work of Tregelles, a single example must 
suffice for illustration. 

In I Cor. xi. 24, the word "klomenon," 
broken, is omitted by Tregelles, and by the 
Canterbury revisers. The authorities cited by 
Tregelles are as follows: The Alexandrine 
and Vatican, also the Sinaitic and early Pa- 
risian before correction, among uncial manu- 
scripts, also, one cursive manuscript, 17, with 
one Armenian version, omit the passage. It is 
found in the common text, the " koine ekdosis " 
of the ancient and modern Greeks. It was 
restored in the uncials cited by early Greek 
revisers in two cases ; by the third of ten succes- 
sive correctors of the Sinaitic, and by the third 
corrector of the early Parisian. It is restored and 
made emphatic by the term " thruptomenon," 
crushed, inserted by the second Greek corrector 
in the manuscript of Paul's epistles, marked D, 
because, as we have seen, it was, for a time, 

OMISSION IN i COR. xi. 24. 85 

supposed to be the continuation of the manu- 
script of the Gospel and Acts, also marked D, 
in the Cambridge Library ; a manuscript fully 
described by Hug, and briefly mentioned by 
Tregelles, and a manuscript now well known for 
centuries in the Royal Library of Paris. It is 
found, also, in the following later uncials : in F, 
in Trinity College, Oxford ; in G, in the Dres- 
den Library ; in both K and L in the Library of 
Paris; in the important cursives, No. 37 and 
47 ; in the two Syriac versions, the Peschito and 
Harclean ; and in the Gothic and one Armenian. 
Jerome found it, as he did other passages, 
omitted in the uncials made in Egypt just 
before his thirty years spent in Palestine; and, 
restoring it, he rendered it " tradetur," shall be 
delivered. The Latin Vulgate retains it, and 
renders it " traditur," is delivered ; not " trade- 
tur," as by oversight or misprint it appears in 
Tregelles. The Arabic, never cited by Tre- 
gelles, prepared, as Hug shows, from the Greek, 
but with Latin and other versions guiding the 
translator, has " tekeser " ; a verb which in 
meaning shows that the Greek term " klomenon " 
was the translator's guide ; while its form throws 
light on the two forms "tradetur" and "tradi- 
tur" in the Latin. The Arabic verb, " keser," 
the third person singular of the preterit, is 
rendered by Freytag in Latin, " fregit," he 


broke ; while by French lexicographers, now in 
Algiers, it is rendered by the familiar term 
" casser." The augmented tense, " tekeser," 
called in Hebrew and* the cognate Arabic 
either " future " or " present," represents, like 
the Greek aorist, the act unlimited as to time ; 
though while the Greek aorist represents the 
act as past, the Hebrew and Arabic repre- 
sent the time as incomplete, though the act may 
be past, present, or future, according to the 
connection. The Greek "klomenon" admitted 
this indistinctness as to time; since Jesus in 
uttering the word used it as to what was to 
occur the next morning. That He did utter the 
term is indicated by several considerations. 
First, Luke, who wrote his Gospel as Paul's 
companion, and with the Epistle to the Corin- 
thians for some years before him and his readers, 
represents Christ as using the word " didomenon'' 
(Luke xxii. 19); whose correctness no authority 
has ever questioned, though it is omitted in one 
Syriac version, showing that omissions crept in 
that were unauthorized, by error of copyists. 
Luke's statement (xxii. 19) is, "And taking 
the bread he broke it (eklasen, the aorist 
tense), and gave it (edoken, also aorist) to 
them, saying, this is my body given (didomenon) 
for you." Luke represents Christ as drawing 
His participle from the second verb, "didomi"; 


but Paul's is from the first verb, " klao." Sec- 
ond, the phrases of Luke and Paul, " to soma mou 
to hyper hymon," — the body of me, that for 
you — are precisely the same, the participle only 
excepted. If, now, Paul did not add, like 
Luke, a participle, there was a hiatus unex- 
pected, an omission the reader must supply if 
the writer did not. Third, the " koine ekdosis," 
in use " time out of mind " among the Greeks, 
the cursive manuscripts generally which guided 
the Roman and Reformed editors at the Refor- 
mation, attest that the word belongs to the 
original text ; while the Greek revisers of differ- 
ent ages, better judges than any modern 
scholars can be, inserted the word in the Egyp- 
tian-made uncials, regarded by all Greeks, in all 
ages, as incorrect. The rejection by Tregelles, 
not only of the text received by all the Greek 
guardians of the New Testament given in their 
vernacular, but also of that inserted by all the 
successive revisers of the Egyptian uncials in 
ages and by men best qualified to judge of their 
imperfections — the fact that he shrank from 
following Tischendorff in adhering to the view 
that these manuscripts because very old were 
therefore supreme as authority — yet more, the 
incompleteness of Tregelles' research as to this 
and other like changes made in the Greek text 
— all these facts, as the Bishop of St. Andrews 


intimates, justified the Canterbury revisers in 
hesitating to follow Tregelles, as he had hesi- 
tated to follow Tischendorff. 


The facts thus traced as to changes in the 
Greek text, followed by the revisers, affect but 
indirectly the changes in rendering given by 
them to the great body of the New Testament 
as universally received. With most of those 
changes the English-speaking Christian world 
has felt and expressed special satisfaction. It is 
the unexpected change made in the Greek text 
which has awakened the solicitude even of the 
revisers ; more than one of whom speaks through 
the Bishop of St. Andrews. As a matter of 
translation only he feels the utterly changed 
aspect of the petition : " Deliver us from the 
evil one," i. e., from an enemy without, as com- 
pared with the deeper conviction which prompts 
the cry : " Deliver us from evil" the traitor 
within; but he dwells chiefly on the implied de- 
nial, indicated by its omission of the Divine sanc- 
tion for the ascription : " For thine is the king- 
dom, the power and the glory forever " ; an 
ascription, which, in the prayers of Christian wor- 


shippers in every portion of the world, has from 
time immemorial been made a part of "the 
Lord's prayer." Yet again, as a matter only of 
changed translation the Bishop of St. Andrews 
sees a doctrinal lack in the angels' song when it is 
changed, by the addition of a single letter in the 
Greek, from the universal promise, " good will to 
men," and made to assume the limited pledge to 
the few self-supposed " men of good will." It is, 
however, the authority found in any " real 
consensus of scholars " for the change in the 
Greek text, that the good Bishop doubts. And 
well may any earnest Christian inquirer thus 
hesitate ; for, these are the stated authorities. 
The Alexandrine uncial in this passage, the Vati- 
can before correction, and the Latin and Gothic 
versions add " s " to the Greek word " eudokia " ; 
while the Alexandrine in its added " Natal 
Hymn," the Vatican as corrected by its second 
native Greek revisers, the old Syriac and the 
Oriental versions generally, the cursive manu- 
scripts, the Greek " koine ekdosis " of to-day, 
arc all in accord with the versions of scholars of 
the Reformation. To this testimony, cited by 
Tregelles, Tischendorff now adds : that, while the 
Sinaitic manuscript originally inserted the "s," it 
was erased by an early Greek reviser ; the whole 
phalanx of Greek authorities thus sustaining 
the integrity of the received Greek text and de- 



daring the error of the uncial manuscripts, as 
well as the inconsistency of their special advo- 

It is not the hesitancy of the original revisers, 
however, that constitutes the main demand for 
an impartial review of the changes proposed 
in the Greek text of the New Testament. These 
changes, especially the omissions from the re- 
ceived text, have led to the extreme of sceptical 
objection. The class of " Liberal Religionists," 
who accept only the teachings of natural as dis- 
tinct from revealed religion, affirm : " The 
Catholics rely on an infallible Church as the 
interpreter of revelation ; and the Protestants 
rely on an infallible text as the revelation to be 
interpreted." These objections cannot be met in 
argument if the Egyptian-made uncial manu- 
scripts — full of errors, as even Tischendorff 
allows and rejected as unreliable by the Greeks 
themselves — arc the only trustworthy guides to 
the true text. Again, the large class of" Liberal 
Christians," who accept the Scriptures, but seek 
to find the proofs of a human rather than of a 
Divine origin, argue, and conclusively : " On 
the same grounds that the Canterbury revisers 
have made a few changes in the text, and 
Tregelles more, while Tischendorff consistently 
goes to the extreme of all the omissions and vari- 
ations found in the Egyptian uncials, — on these 


same grounds the whole fabric of the claim to 
an infallible text is made to be a fallacy; and 
our claim is established that the book is human 
and its text and its interpretation are to be ac- 
cepted only as each man's individual reason 
makes it truth for himself." 

Here the hesitating admission of the Bishop 
of St. Andrews as to his own reasons for yield- 
ing to changes which Christian judgment re- 
jected, demand again a most careful considera- 
tion. In his charge to his diocese the Bishop 
thus writes. After declaring : " the more I saw 
of the work the more it appeared to me that we 
were going beyond the purpose for which we 
were appointed," and again stating as he refers 
to the omissions above cited : " I did the best 
I could to resist alterations of the authorized 
version such as these," the Bishop adds : " So 
far as I could judge I was unable to discover in 
either case any real necessity of faithfulness to 
justify, or any actual consensus of. scholars to de- 
mand the changes that have been made." It is 
this latter fact, apparent to the Bishop as one 
of the original Board of revisers, which has 
been brought to view in the history above 
traced. There is no " actual consensus " of 
scholars in any age or branch of the Christian 
Church that has justified these changes. As 
the manuscripts themselves attest, the Greek 


Church, in whose language they were written, 
were either indifferent to the Egyptian uncials 
as superannuated, or they sought to correct in 
them errors which to their superior judgment 
were palpable; thus making them conform to 
the " koine ekdosis." Yet more ; the most in- 
telligent and conscientious scholars of both the 
Eastern and Western Churches never regarded 
them of any value except as collateral testimony 
to the " textus receptus " ; with which in the 
main they accord. Still yet more ; no class of 
scholars has ever proposed that the " common 
text " should be set aside ; for even Tregelles 
would only have that text modified when all 
the leading Egyptian uncials are found to vary 
from it. The mere individual aspirants for per- 
sonal originality in philological research, so fitly 
characterized by Hug, have proved that they 
are but mutually-conflicting and reciprocally- 
destructive critics. The inquiry, therefore, is 
not only legitimate, but imperative : "What has 
given origin and growing prevalence to this 
new, this unprecedented, this inconsistent and 
this self-destructive devotion to the Egyptian 
uncials?" To refer it mainly to blind enthusi- 
asm for mere antiquity, to suppose that antiq- 
uity has been mistaken for authority, though 
this is really the character of these manuscripts, 
as their former possessors have attested, does 


not cover the ground of actual misleading 


There are general causes for the fact that the 
Egyptian copies of the New Testament, so nu- 
merously made during the century which fol- 
lowed the accession of Constantine, should have 
been unduly estimated by European scholars; 
who, in comparatively modern days, have first 
met with the manuscripts which after a thou- 
sand years of possession had ceased to be of any 
practical value to their Greek possessors. 

First, there is a natural admiration for archae- 
ological relics; most worthy when confined to 
its proper limit. But, as one of the early re- 
prints of Tyndale's, or even of King James', 
version, made by English or American printers 
in the early haste after the Revolutions under 
Charles I. and George III., are now prized as 
museum-relics, though untrustworthy as author- 
ity, so a discriminating judgment must decide 
as to the prized uncial manuscripts of the New 

Second, the authority of the Greek revisers of 
those manuscripts has naturally been under- 
valued. There is a national pride, truly patri- 


otic, that places a high estimate on national 
prominence in power ; and which by this stand- 
ard estimates the treasures of other nations ac- 
cording to their present political eminence. 
The treasures, however, of early Greek Chris- 
tian scholarship are coming to be more and 
more prized by German theologians like Dorner 
and Ritschl ; and the faith of the Greek Church, 
more primitive than that of the Roman Church, 
is finding constantly a larger place in German 
writers on Ecclesiastical History. The unwa- 
vering confidence of the unbroken line of Greek 
Christian scholars in the integrity of the " com- 
mon text" of the original New Testament, 
their vernacular, — embodied for ten centuries 
in their corrections of the Egyptian uncials, — 
is one of the characteristics of modern research. 
This was specially illustrated in Professor, after- 
wards President, Felton of Harvard University. 
When studied at a distance, the modern Greek 
people seemed to his view to have no claim to 
authority as guardians of the literature of their 
noble ancestry. When afterwards studied for a 
few weeks at Athens, in their Court and their 
University, and amid their classic surroundings, 
the modern Greeks seemed in themselves to be 
worthy of their inheritance and of a voice as in- 
terpreters of the ancient classics. 

Third, the claim of the Oriental Church has 


long been overlooked: that of the Armenians 
of ancient Eden and Ararat ; that of the Nes- 
torians whose line is traced to the apostle 
Thomas; that of the Syrian Christians who 
justly claim direct lineage with the disciples of 
Jesus' day, and whose were the " Palestinian 
codices" cited by Hug; that of the Copts of 
Egypt who go back in their claim, past Clement 
and Origen, to Mark the evangelist ; and lastly 
that of the Abyssinian Church, who speak still, 
as Bishop Gobat states, of their relation to the 
treasurer of Queen Candace. All these, be- 
cause of their political subordination for ages, 
have been lost from view as having no voice of 
historic authority. But Chateaubriand, Lamar- 
tine and even Renan of France have succes- 
sively caught the new spirit inspired amid the 
scenes of Jesus' life. D'Israeli, in his " Lothair," 
recognized its legitimate sway when he made 
his young hero, sighing for the earlier tradition, 
fail to find satisfaction at Rome; while he 
seemed to breathe a purer atmosphere as in 
Syria he roamed and communed with a Chris- 
tian of the Eastern Church, and as, with him, 
he went back, past mediaeval traditions, rituals 
and decrees, to the words of Jesus, read on the 
soil hallowed by His footsteps and studied amid 
the scenes yet vocal with His utterances. The 
decadence of the military power which has 


made the people of Western Asia seem, but 
only seem, to have accepted the Mohammedan 
faith, will bring a new people into the alliance 
of Christendom ; whose line of guardians of 
the New Testament will be seen to have a 
higher honor than the Jewish Church; whose 
fidelity in preserving the integrity of the text ot 
the Old Testament, the earlier " lively oracles,' 
drew forth the sincere commendation of Paul, 
though he went beyond his countrymen in ac- 
cepting the " new covenant " ; a covenant which 
its author will not permit the negligence of care- 
less and indifferent transcribers to " annul " by 
omissions, or to overlay with additions. Yet 
more; the Coptic convents on the Nile, de- 
scribed by Lane and Sir Gardner Wilkinson, 
and visited by occasional Western scholars, 
whose libraries are carefully locked through fear 
of plunder under the name of research, may yet 
be entered ; and Christian grace, though not 
Christian gold, may yet unlock those libraries 
and reveal rare copies of the Greek New Testa- 
ment. Then the originals from which Greek 
scholars of ten centuries have corrected the 
Egyptian uncials — the originals may perhaps be 

Fourth, bondage to ecclesiastical precedents, 
seen even in Hug, has doubtless been a cause of 
error as to the Egyptian uncials. Nothing 


could be more significant than Hug's statement 
as to the Latin Vulgate ; that it is authority 
" in discipline"' but is not supreme in doctrine. 
Nothing could be more emphatic and full than 
his classification of the leading Egyptian un- 
cials ; which, as he declares, follow the text of 
"the Hesychian recension," known to have 
been controlled by the teachings of Marcion. 
Nothing, therefore, to the impartial scholar, 
could be more significant than this, his own 
statement, after having accorded superior au- 
thority to the Palestine, as compared with the 
Egyptian manuscripts: "The manuscripts of 
the koine ckdosis in Syria contained, notwith- 
standing, several important readings which we 
seek in vain in the Egyptian manuscripts"; 
and then he cites Matt. vi. 13; Matt. xx. 22: 
Mark vi. 13; Mark xiii. 14; Luke iv. 18; the 
very passages which we have seen to be omit- 
ted from the Latin Vulgate. That such a 
scholar as Hug could find no other authority 
than the Egyptian uncials, whose integrity he 
had before in every respect disproved, — that 
Hug found no other resort than these rejected 
manuscripts for these omissions is proof de- 
monstrative that they do not err who on Hug's 
own statement deny the authority of the Latin 
Vulgate, when on such grounds it departs from 
the common text. 


Fifth, the adoption of the rule, opposed by 
Bacon, that " individual opinion " as opposed to 
" uniform historic testimony," began the lean- 
ing to the authority of the Egyptian uncials 
which has now culminated. Dr. Edward Rob- 
inson, in his edition of Hahn's Greek New Tes- 
tament, published at New York in 1842, thus 
states this rule of criticism: "Lower criticism 
occupies itself only with external evidence ; and 
employs it to distinguish between what is genu,- 
ine and what is spurious and corrupt, whether 
in respect to a whole book or a collection of 
books, or also to a single passage or word. 
Higher criticism, on the contrary, rests only on 
the internal evidence ; and determines either a 
whole book, or single passages to be genuine or 
not, according as they agree or disagree with 
the character or style of the writer to whom, 
and with the genius and history of the time to 
which, they are ascribed." That expression 
" rests only on the internal evidence " is calcu- 
lated to awaken thought. As applied to Gre- 
cian and Roman historians and poets,' to Ho- 
mer and Herodotus, to Virgil, Livy and Pliny, 
this rule, adopted more than a century ago in 
Germany, like much of German philosophy, has 
been " weighed in the balance " of practical 
judgment and has been " found wanting." It 
is nothing else than the statement that a single 


modern student, in the seclusion of his study, 
has better means of judging of the " character 
and style" of an ancient writer and of compre- 
hending the " genius and history of their times " 
than had all the contemporaries and immediate 
successors of the writer criticised. Discoveries 
of imperfections in the text of the Hebrew and 
Greek Scriptures and of the Greek and Latin 
classic authors, which escaped the ken of their 
contemporaries and of generations of native 
scholars for ages since, have somehow been re- 
vealed to a speculative critic in the 18th and 
19th centuries ! Surely this savors of the self- 
idolatry indicated in the " idola tribfis, speeds, 
fori et theatri," which Bacon hunted down to 
their secret shrines. It certainly comes under 
Hug's just condemnation above quoted. 

And the result proves Hug to have spoken 
not simply from conviction as to principle, but 
also from experience as to the fact. The four 
editors who followed the rule above cited are 
Griesbach, Knapp, Lachmann, and Scholz. No 
two of these agreed ; Griesbach changed his de- 
cisions in successive editions ; Scholz is incon- 
sistent with himself; and Hahn restored much 
that his predecessors had discarded. Turning 
to the eighteen passages omitted from the 
Egyptian uncials, citing with Hahn and Robin- 
son the editors by their initials, G, K, L, S, H, 


and indicating passages omitted as unsustained 
by out., those regarded by the editor as doubt- 
ful and hence enclosed in brackets by dub. or 
doubtful, and those retained as belonging to the 
true text by ret., the following is the record. 
Matt. vi. 13 G S L om. K H dub.; Matt. xii. 47 
all ret.; Matt. xvii. 21 all ret. ; Matt, xviii. 11 
all ret. ; Matt, xxiii. 14 L om. G K S H ret., but 
transpose vs. 13 and 14 ; Matt. xxiv. 35 all ret. / 
Mark vi. 1 1 G om., K L H (S not cited) dub. ; 
Mark xiii. 14 G om., K L H dub. ; Luke iv. 18 
G om., K L H dub.; John v. 4 all ret.; John vii. 
53 to viii. 1 1 all ret. ; Acts vii. 37 G S L om., K 
H dub. ; Acts ix. 6 G K S L om., H dub. ; 1 
John v. 7 all om. The annals of editorial criti- 
cism can hardly furnish a parallel to such incon- 
sistency in decisions formed from "individual 
opinions," and which " rests only on internal 
evidence." When it is considered that all these 
editors belong to the same school, Hug is more 
than justified in his condemnation of the rule of 
judgment. When it is added that the Egyptian 
uncials and the Hesychian recension, on which 
those uncials were founded, are the guides of 
these editors, American scholars cannot be re- 
garded as untrue to the rules of just criticism if 
they adhere to the " common text " of the Greek 
New Testament. 
Sixth, unconscious partiality for a preferred 


class of authorities, also alluded to by Hug, has 
been, as in Tregelles, a fascinating leader. This 
tendency, charity admits, has unconsciously led 
to the preference for the three special cursive 
manuscripts, Nos. I, 33, 69, styled " important " 
by Tregelles. This doubtless led, in Tregelles' 
citation from Armenian versions, to the use of 
copies which at many points are not in harmony 
with the now received version of the Armenian 
Church. This, again, doubtless influenced the 
omission of important authorities on such pas- 
sages as Matt, xviii. 11, Matt. xxiv. 35 and l 
John v. 7, which are cited by Poole. This un- 
conscious partiality, yet again, doubtless led to 
the selection of the " version of Jerome " placed 
side by side with his amended Greek text by 
Tregelles; as its selection and foot-note refer- 
ence to other " Latin versions " show. While 
Hug, specially competent to decide, traces the 
whole history of Latin versions before and after 
Jerome, and affirms that the text of Jerome was 
much corrupted by his successors, that it was 
not fully received till the sixth century, that 
Alcuinus " intended nothing more than to restore 
Jerome's Bible as accurately as possible," and 
that the received Vulgate, whose history he 
traces, was, as adopted at the Council of Trent, 
substantially the " received Church-version," 
Tregelles alludes to four versions, and selects an 


edition of Jerome called that of Amiatinus, at 
Florence, of the 6th century, for prominence. 
His use of this, as compared with the others 
cited, seen especially on Luke iv. 18, Acts viii. 
37, ix. 6 and ist John v. 7, betrays his predi- 
lections. Its departures from the received Vul- 
gate, styled by Tregelles the " Clementine " 
edition, have been already noted. 


The parallel between unscientific methods in 
physical induction and in philological criticism, 
linking themselves as both do with materialistic 
theories, has become so palpable as to call forth 
the animadversions of such a critic as the Amer- 
ican Ripley and of such a scientist as the En- 
glish Lewes. In his address at the inauguration 
of the statue of Franklin in front of the Tribune 
Building, New York, George Ripley, ripe and 
rich in both the experience and the criticism of 
every phase of " liberal thought " in America, 
after tracing the pervasive tendencies of mate- 
rialism in the popular literature of the day, de- 
clared that its rule had reached its climax; 
from which a reaction was sure soon to begin. 


Writing the Life of Goethe, Lewes, the En- 
glish materialistic evolutionist, after tracing the 
speculative tendencies that controlled German 
idealistic evolutionists, like Oken and Haeckell, 
based on the poetic fancies of Goethe, — Lewes 
cites the following supposed case to illustrate 
the differing methods of logical induction and 
of speculative deduction. Supposing that an 
international prize for the best essay on the two- 
humped camel were offered, he gives this pic- 
ture. The English explorer would visit the 
mountain regions of Bactria and Thibet, in or- 
der that he might study the camel itself in its 
" environment " ; the French scientist would 
resort to all the Libraries of Europe, and would 
collate all that had ever been written on the 
subject ; while the German student would sit 
down in his study and " evolve the animal out 
of his own consciousness." 

This parallel as to method pursued in scien- 
tific and literary criticism, thus observed by the 
veteran Ripley and the satiric Lewes, is seen in 
the common result, reached by both, the denial 
of all supernatural spiritual agency ; a result at- 
tained by proceeding from the opposite ends of 
a common chain. The scientist, predisposed to 
reach such a result, begins by collating facts 
which indicate that the origin, as well as the 
continuance, of the mechanical order and of the 



organizing forces of the material Universe, re- 
quires no supposition of an infinite designing 
mind ; and hence he is prepared to deny all re- 
ceived truths in both natural and revealed relig- 
ion. The Biblical critic, more unconsciously 
predisposed to the same tendency, beginning 
with the Christian revelation, denies first, be- 
cause he has not experienced it, that Divine 
regeneration which gives the " eye," as Jesus 
taught, to " see " spiritual truth ; second, inspi- 
ration, given by the same Divine power to reveal 
the truth to be seen ; and third, the Divine nat- 
ure, works and mission of Christ as the mediator 
in man's redemption. Unable, because it would 
be illogical, to pause here, when he passes to 
the truths of natural religion, this Biblical critic 
denies, first, the efficacy of prayer, except as a 
moral influence on a misguided imagination ; 
second, Divine Providence, which, if real, makes 
trust in prayer to be anything else than a mental 
delusion ; and third, creation, which of course, 
if admitted, demands at the outset as many and 
as repeated Divine .interpositions as there are 
distinct types and orders in plant and animal 
organism ; and that, not only in any one, but 
in each successive geological age. The fact, so 
palpable, that no Biblical critic who denies the 
first of these six principles can maintain logic- 
ally either of the other five, shows the natural 



and necessary- tendency of this school in Biblical 

The process pursued under their method by 
this school, generally styled " rationalistic," in 
Biblical criticism, deserves notice ; since its 
whole theory is proved to be illegitimate, if' the 
text of the records, claimed as inspired, is shown 
to have been guarded by a Divine as well as by 
human watch-care. The claim of " inspiration " 
is declared to be an a priori assumption, rather 
than an inductive and demonstrative conclusion ; 
it is asserted that real contradictions in history, 
and inconsistencies in science, as well as errors 
in the text are found ; and it is contended that 
the believers in Divine inspiration " argue in a 
circle," in denying without proof these errors on 
the ground of inspiration. If the claim of inspi- 
ration for the Old and New Testament records 
is but an " a priori assumption," and if the de- 
fence of the supposed errors is simply a special 
plea to maintain that assumption, then these 
critics are right. As, however, the defenders of 
the truths of natural religion have included the 
best and ablest men of India, Greece and Rome, 
and as the demonstrators of the truths of re- 
vealed as well as of natural religion have em- 
braced the ablest scientists and jurists, as well 
as bibiicists, successively eminent in all the most 
advanced nations of Europe, — while, moreover, 


the Old and New Testaments have ruled the 
convictions of the common mind wherever their 
teachings have been known, — the " burden of 
proof," of course, rests on the denier. When, 
then, the reliableness of the received text of 
those records is called in question, the review of 
the steps which have led to the new issue may 
be legitimately retraced. Though it may be 
sufficient to have shown the inconsistent con- 
clusions drawn from misconceived facts in the 
few scholars who have rejected the " common 
text," yet to see as plainly the unsustained 
foundation, in science as well as in criticism, on 
which the unsubstantial superstructure stands, 
may aid to the establishment of " the truth as 
it is in Jesus " in Christian confidence. 


All effective defence of truth, as Jesus no less 
than Socrates illustrated, must begin with show- 
ing the fallacy of opposing conclusions ; its next 
step must be to show that the very premises of 
the opposition sustain the contrary conclusion ; 
and it must close with the direct and demon- 
strative proof that the new conclusion thus 
reached is practically the only truth that 


human wisdom can accept. The first proposi- 
tion of Euclid begins with the " reductio ad ab- 
surdum " ; it urges next, from the absurdity of 
the opposing conclusion, the truth of the stated 
proposition ; and it cites, last, the first-stated 
and the necessarily accepted axiom, that " two 
things equal to a third are equal to each other," 
as the demonstrative proof of that conclusion. 
So when the truly supernatural agency of Christ 
in His miracles was denied, and hence His Di- 
vine nature and mission were called in question, 
Jesus himself pursued this natural order of ef- 
fective reply. First, by the "reductio ad ab- 
surdum," He premised : " If Satan cast out Sa- 
tan, he is divided against himself; how, then, 
shall his kingdom stand?" Second, by the 
"argumentum ad hominem," He controverted: 
" If I by Beelzebub cast out devils, by whom do 
your children cast them out? therefore they 
shall be your judges." Third, by direct and 
demonstrative argument, He urged : that the 
power which dethrones must be superior to 
that of the enthroned ; that nothing but Divine 
power could interpose supernatural agency ; that 
therefore " the kingdom of God was come " to 
them ; and finally He declares, that to deny 
the immediate agency of the Holy Spirit was 
to be controlled by a spirit so opposed to the 
Divine Being as to shut off forever acceptance 


with God and spiritual association with the 
pure and true around the Divine throne. In 
defence of Christ's truth, it is enough that the 
disciple follow his Master. 

Theories of material and ideal evolution were 
rife among the Brahmins of India when the 
Vedas, which preceded the day of Moses, were 
written ; they are analyzed in the Institutes of 
Menu, the last of those Vedas ; they were stud- 
ied by Moses in Egypt, and are apparently al- 
luded to in this declaration (Deut. iv. 8) as to 
the superiority of " the statutes " (hoqim, or 
laws of nature, Job xxviii. 26; Prov. viii. 29, 
etc.), which he received from God ; and, in his 
account of the origin of all things, he asserted 
that Divine " creation," not self-evolution, was 
" the truth " in nature. Such theories, much 
more subtle, were rife among the Greeks and 
Romans before Jesus appeared; they are al- 
luded to by Huxley and Haeckell, the former 
of the school of Democritus and Lucretius and 
the latter of the school of Xenophanes; they 
were replied to by the analysis of Socrates, by 
the logic of Aristotle and by the learning of 
Cicero; they are alluded to by Paul as natu- 
rally linked to and parallel with " mythical " lit- 
erary interpretations at Ephesus, the centre of 
Grecian speculative thought in his day ; and the 
great Christian apostle shows (1 Tim. i. 4 and 


vi. 20, 21) that "the truth as it is in Jesus " re- 
veals the baselessness of the fancies on which 
both are made to rest. So, in modern times, 
Cuvier, in the French Academy in 1 830, showed 
that the school of Goethe and Oken, then rep- 
resented by St. Hilaire, presented no fact, but 
only a theory; and, more, that the contrary 
truth was revealed by the monuments of 
Egypt, which pictured horses and donkeys, 
wheat and barley, 4,000 years ago growing side 
by side as now, while in all succeeding ages no 
trace of change of type, nor intermediate link, 
nor progress in evolution had appeared. Just 
so, too, Agassiz, in the American Academy and 
in lecture-halls, declared that not one fact cited 
by Darwin the materialist or by Haeckell the 
idealist, justifies their evolution theories; and, 
yet more, that all the facts in embryological 
development, and in geological succession, 
were opposed, instead of favorable, to the idea 
of evolution. Moreover, nothing is so appar- 
ent to practical fruit-growers and cattle-breeders 
as this: that the seed of improved varieties, con- 
trary to Darwin's theory, degenerates instead of 
improving; and that because the vital energy 
is exhausted in individual improvement, while 
the power of reproduction is correspondingly 
impaired. The starting-point of this class of 
scientists, whose auxiliary support alone sus-. 


tains the parallel school in Biblical criticism, is 
in itself as opposed to all rules of induction as 
the reasoning of their coadjutors in literary 
criticism is opposed to the laws of legitimate 
deduction. It is this latter fact, it should be 
observed, which serves as the unsatisfactory 
postulate on which their reasoning is made to 


The starting-point of argument against in- 
spiration, that it presupposes Divine interposi- 
tion and is therefore a mere a priori assump- 
tion, is the opposite of fact. If the Divine Be- 
ing has interposed in creation, again and again 
putting forth His direct energy to originate 
new, and to human conception insignificant, 
types of plant and animal organism — and Agas- 
siz, like Socrates, could believe nothing else — 
then the expressed conviction of Confucius, 
Socrates and Cicero, that that same Divine 
Creator would interpose to give an infallible 
moral guide for man His highest creature — that 
conviction is as reliable a starting-point in the 
search for a true revelation as the conviction 
that universal order has an adequate cause is a 


legitimate starting-point in the search for natural 
law. But this prior conviction is only an incentive 
to search. The universal belief in revelation, 
somewhere to be found, is, in the next place, 
a just cause for search ; for as the existence of 
false coin proves the prior existence of true 
coin, so is it with a Divine revelation of needed 
spiritual truth ; and yet, as intimated, this con- 
viction is only a cause for search. The univer- 
sal conviction that if a supernatural revelation 
of spiritual truth be given it will be attested by 
supernatural manifestations of interposed mate- 
rial power, called "miracles," — this conviction 
is, in the third place, the guide to investigation 
of the claims of any professed revelation ; for, 
men can Judge of the real supernatural in mate- 
rial interposition addressed to the eye; and 
this, according to even materialistic induction, 
is the only possible demonstration that a reve- 
lation has been given. But even this prior con- 
viction is not in itself relied on as if it were a 
realized fact. It is historic testimony, which is 
but a record of facts observed by reliable men in 
other ages, which, in the fourth place, is relied 
upon as the legitimate proof that such material 
interpositions were manifested in the case of 
Moses and of Jesus. As to Moses, living at 
the culminating era of Asiatic science, and 
"learned" in Egyptian art, even Pliny, like 


Paul, names the Egyptian " wise-men " (or 
" hakim," a name still heard in Egypt and cog- 
nate, as Fuerst states, to " hoqim " in Deut. iv. 
8) who sought to disprove by art the real super, 
natural. As to Jesus, the most acute Greeks 
and the most careful Romans, at the very age 
when under Augustus ancient European phi- 
losophy reached its climax, carefully examined 
and then accepted the facts. Moreover, from 
the first, the cultured Arabian mind has ac- 
cepted Mohammed's own repeated assertions 
in the Koran, that while no other professed 
Asiatic revelation, his own not excepted, could 
claim the test of seen " miracles," the facts as 
to both Moses and Jesus were undeniable. 
Hence, in all later days, even to our time, when 
studying amid the local traditions of Palestine, 
whose historic verity is like those of every other 
land, not only Chateaubriand and Lamartine, 
Dr. Robinson and Dean Stanley, but men like 
Strauss and Renan can no more deny the reli- 
ableness of native historic tradition than they 
can deny like traditions which each accepts as 
reliable in his own native land. 

It is, then, no a priori assumption when it is 
claimed that the books of the Old and New Tes- 
taments are inspired Divine revelations. This 
claim rests on precisely the same evidence as 
the claim to genuineness of the historic records 


of Herodotus ; whose statements as to Egypt, 
as Daniel Webster used to argue, only seemed 
to be myths until the explorations begun by 
Napoleon in 1798 revealed the correctness of 
their detail. For, grant, as it must be granted, 
that a revelation is to be expected as a needed 
moral guide, — grant, as it must be granted, that 
the Divine Being has interposed to create at 
many an era a comparatively insignificant new 
plant or animal — then the testimonies to the 
acts and teachings of Jesus, which assert and 
attest Divine interposition, must be accepted on 
precisely the same ground as the testimonies to 
the occurrence of eclipses of the sun and moon 
whose record Newton accepted as the data for 
his inductions. He who denies here does vio- 
lence to all the laws of inductive science. 


The testimony to the fact that a Divine reve- 
lation has been given, is, as we have seen, de- 
monstrative. The fact that the records which 
•embody that revelation are Divinely inspired is 
another and distinct question for consideration. 
Here it should be observed that the conviction 
that the Old and New Testaments are inspired 
and the conception of the nature of inspiration are 



not to be confounded. Every one is convinced 
that the action of the vocal organs in the utter- 
ance of words is necessarily associated with the 
exercise of the mind which forms the thought 
to be put into words ; while no one ever yet has 
gained a clear conception of the nature of this 
associated co-operation between .thought and 
muscular action. Objections to the fact and to 
the manner of the fact are to be kept distinct 
in their consideration. 

So far as the Old Testament is concerned, 
modern objections to its inspiration may be 
classed under three heads : those drawn, first, 
from the words used in its statement, or its vo- 
cabulary ; second, from its statements of fact, or 
its historic records ; and third, from its state- 
ments of principle, or its allusions to physical 
and its teachings in moral science. Specimens 
of the first are so-called' Chaldaeisms; found in 
its poetry, as in Exod. 15th, Ps. 103d and Isa. 
40th ; and urged as evidences that these portions 
were written, not in the age when they profess 
to be, but during the Babylonish captivity, when 
Chaldee words naturally came into the language. 
This suggestion, rife a century ago, has led the 
ablest Hebrew scholars, especially those who as 
Israelites still read the Hebrew as vernacular, 
to note these facts. The original language of 
Abraham, the head of the Hebrew nation, was 


Chaldee ; and just as old Saxon and even Celtic 
words are kept alive by English poets in suc- 
ceeding ages from Chaucer to Cowper, so Moses, 
David and Isaiah kept alive old Chaldee terms 
in their poetry. The demonstrative proof of 
the legitimacy of this conclusion- is this: that, 
as the old Latin term " arare," meaning to 
plough, appears in the English words " ear, ear- 
ing and eared," whose English grammatical 
structure shows that they were early domesti- 
cated, and are not, like " data," etc., of late in- 
troduction, so the Hebrew grammatical form 
given to these old Chaldee words, entirely un- 
like in grammatical form to the later and pure 
Chaldee terms introduced into the book of 
Daniel, proves that the writers of the earliest 
Hebrew ages not only might, but as history 
affirms did, use the older Chaldee. 

Specimens of the second class, or supposed 
historic errors, every one of which have been 
fully elucidated by scholars like Poole, are such 
as these. Sennacherib, of Assyria, is said to 
have invaded Judea some years before he was 
king. The reply is manifest ; first, that Isaiah 
(xxxvi. 1) and Ezra (2d Chron. xxxii. 1), who 
would be quite as likely to know the fact as a 
modern critic, state the same fact as it is found 
2d Kings xviii. 13 ; while any student of com- 
parative history will recall that just so Titus the 


Roman, as a General, some years before he was 
Emperor, invaded Judea. Again, the statements 
(2d Kings viii. 26) that Ahaziah was " twenty- 
two years old," and (2d Chron. xxii. 2) that he 
was "forty-two years old" on coming to the 
throne, are met by Poole's reference to 1 Sam. 
xiii. I. The phrase " son (or heir) of one year 
in his reign " was necessarily varied in the En- 
glish version from the rendering of the same 
form of expression repeated constantly as to 
subsequent kings ; and found in the two state- 
ments as to Ahaziah. To suppose that the two 
Hebrew writers of the Kings and Chronicles 
would contradict each other, and that no He- 
brew reader for centuries, until the rise of^mod- 
ern criticism, would detect the contradiction, is 
certainly an a priori assumption of that school 
of criticism which awakens attention to their 
claims to profoundness. The explanation, there- 
fore, intimated by the Greek translators and by 
Josephus, is not only natural, but demonstrative ; 
that Ezra, full of the thought, as he writesthe 
history of the line of Judah's kings, that the 
Messianic succession was to be traced in its 
special links down to Zorababel, the leader in 
the return and restoration of the Jewish State — 
Ezra goes back to the succession of Ahaziah's 
father, the son of Jezebel's daughter ; in whom 
the seed of the royal line took on such a taint 


that it constituted a new heirship ; making 
Ahaziah " the son (or heir) of forty-two years in 
his reign." This thought of Ezra, indicated in 
every portion of his historic record, has its par- 
allel in Matthew's note that the blood of the 
incestuous Tamar, of the Canaanite harlot Ra- 
hab, of the Moabitess alien Ruth, and of the 
adulteress Bathsheba, tainted the line, yet 
made the succession of the true Messiah take 
in the three families of mankind. The expe- 
rience of Bunsen, the Egyptologist, is in all 
this class of objections most instructive. After 
twenty years in the ambitious search through 
all Grecian and Roman histories, and through 
Chaldean and Egyptian monumental records, to 
find something that might throw discredit on 
the Hebrew historians, retiring from the storm 
of German denunciation which he was likely to 
encounter, — Bunsen, in his " Egypt's Place in 
Universal History," exclaims, " History was 
born the night when Moses with the law of 
God, civil and moral, in his heart led Israel out 
of Egypt." 

Specimens of the third class of objections are 
found in the statements of Moses in the opening 
chapter of Genesis. Theory after theory in 
violation of the laws both of science and of 
philology has arisen, has had its day, and has 
declined. The supposition that Moses, like Lu- 


cretius, drew but a picture of the imagination 
gives the radical German evolutionist Haeck- 
ell an opportunity, which he coveted, to dis- 
close the speculative errors of rationalistic Bible 
interpreters ; and he writes in his " History of 
Creation " (Appleton's Edit., pp. 38, 39) : " The 
hypothesis of Moses is surprising in its clearness. 
.... In his theory lies hidden progressive de- 
velopment." So far, then, from being a poetic 
fancy, like that of Lucretius, Moses, even ac- 
cording to Haeckell, belongs to the advanced 
school of true science. Turning then to inter- 
pret, as scientific, his statement, the suggestion 
arose that by a " day " is meant a " geological 
age"; a suggestion which the speedy after- 
thought rejects as in itself unscientific ; for, 
then, there have been just " six " geological 
ages ; just " six," no less and no more. 
Driven from this position, the fact is recog- 
nized : that Moses, by his qualification, " The 
evening and the morning were the first day," 
etc., forbids any other than a literal interpre- 
tation of the word " day." The natural and 
consistent interpretation, heard by the writer 
from Prof. Hitchcock as a school-boy in 1834, 
and quoted by Hitchcock as the suggestion of 
Chalmers in 18 14, is this. Moses in Gen. i. 1 
refers to the origin of material existences ; in 
i. 2 he states all he has to reveal of geological 



ages; and in i. 3 he begins at the point in 
earth's history, when, in accordance with Agas- 
siz's later glacial theory, the earth by cooling 
was prepared for the condensation of vapor 
which permitted the sun's rays to break through 
the mist ; so that the light which man calls 
" day " could through that mist reach the 
earth ; a view which Moses' own second state- 
ment (Gen. ii. 4-6) confirms as his meaning. 
The work of the third day is the origin of the 
three species of vegetation adapted to the new 
animals and to man, who were to be formed ; 
while the work of the fourth day is, not the 
creation of the " sun and moon," but their ap- 
pointment to the new office which the clear at- 
mosphere and the new plants, for the first time 
in the earth's history, now permitted. That 
this general view is correct, especially as it re- 
lates to the brevity of the statements in Gen. i. 
1, 2, and to the sudden transition at Gen. i. 3, 
is confirmed by the opening of John's Gospel 
'\. 1-6) ; where " the beginning " and " the 
light " are spiritual, earlier than the material 
described by Moses ; where the brevity is as 
marked ; and where the transition .at i. 6 is as 

The objections to the fact of the inspiration 
of the New Testament are kindred to those 
made as to the Old Testament. They relate to 


supposed conflicting historic statements; re- 
peatedly and fully replied to by jurists like 
Grotius, Greenleaf and others; who have ap- 
plied to these objections the laws of evidence 
which guide in the court-room as to the testi- 
mony of witnesses only seemingly in conflict. 
They seek, again, disputed readings in the text ; 
which have been above considered. They orig- 
inate, however, in objections to Divine interpo- 
sition ; which are met, as observed, by the de- 
monstrative proofs of the Divine existence, 
providence and creation. 


The Grecian Socrates showed, both that the 
facts of religious conviction are demonstrative, 
and that the manner of the fact is only approx- 
imated by analogy; and the same reasoning 
makes demonstrative the received truths of re- 
vealed religion, while it also illustrates their 
nature. When, seeking to show that the ac- 
cepted faith in the several principles of natural- 
religion rested on testimonies precisely like 
those of mathematical calculation, Socrates 
asked how we ktt&w the. first mathematical ax- 


iom, that " two things equal to a third are equal 
to each other " ? The reply being given, " we 
see that two things are equal, and that each is 
equal .to the third," holding up his two fore- 
fingers, he urged that the more we scan things 
supposed to be equal, the more we see that 
they are not equal ; and he satisfied his hearers 
that the supposed seen fact of "equality" is 
really an a priori idea of the mind, which we 
only apply to observed objects. Our ideas, like- 
wise, of cause, of design, of duty, and of fu- 
ture spiritual existence, are, he urged, as legiti- 
mate as the idea of equality ; and our applica- 
tion of them in reasoning leads to conclusions 
as demonstrative as those attained by the math- 
ematics. Sir Isaac Newton recognized this fact 
in the a priori arguments of Samuel Clarke, not 
only for the existence and character of the Di- 
vine Being, but also for the fundamental truths 
of Christian revelation. The world can never 
outgrow this truth : that the existence of a Di- 
vine revelation is a demonstrated fact ; as reli- 
able as is the fact of planetary motion or of 
plant organism. 

The manner of these facts, however, will 
without doubt always elude human ken; and 
so with the manner of the fact of inspiration. 
It is only by approximation that science traces 
the nature of the forces called gravity and vi- 


tality, by observing their witnessed operation ; 
and so the nature of inspiration is only traced 
by progressive approach. Here facts must be 
observed and accepted ; then theories must be 
modified so as to accord with accumulated and 
ever- accumulating observations; while, how- 
ever, each new shifting of the point of the ob- 
server's view adds new confirmation to the fact, 
the manner of whose operation still eludes hu- 
man comprehension. 

Looking at the books of the Old and New 
Testaments, three facts are palpable. First, the 
records are made up in part from human mem- 
ories, preserved in oral traditions or written rec- 
ords. This is apparent in the scrap of Antedi- 
luvian poetry, and in the genealogical table 
quoted at the opening of Moses' record (Gen. 
iv. 23, 24 and v. 1) ; it is stated in the books of 
Kings by references to national "chronicles"; 
it is a testimony appealed to by Luke as his au- 
thority (Luke i. 1-4) ; and it is alluded to by 
Paul as the testimony to which the facts of the 
Gospel history and the teachings of Christ were 
for many years left after His personal life had 
ended (2 Thess. ii. 15). Second, the uninspired 
statements and reasonings of men are incorpo- 
rated into both the Old and New Testament rec- 
ords ; as is specially marked in the earliest po- 
etical book, that of Job ; and as is illustrated 


in the letter of the Roman captain at Jeru- 
salem sent to the Roman governor then at.Caes- 
area (Acts xxiii. 26-30). Third, the partial 
views and personal opinions of the writers are 
found wrought into their records as a part of 
the inspired statement they were called to 
make. Thus Moses and Paul record their own 
errors and faults; John states misunderstand- 
ings of Christ's statements which all His disci- 
ples entertained ; and Paul interweaves through- 
out an entire chapter (1 Cor. vii. 1, 6, 10, 12, 17, 
25,26, 40) his personal "advice" with "com- 
mandment received from the Lord " ; declaring 
even that on some points (v. 40) he was not 
certain from which of the two the suggestion 

These palpable statements as to the nature 
of inspiration, however, but set off the fact of 
inspiration as a necessary Divine provision ; 
while they impress the analogy between Divine 
interposition in the physical universe, and es- 
pecially in spiritual regeneration, as directly 
cited by both Christ and Paul. This analogy 
Christ intimates by the associated statements 
(John iii. 3— 11), " Except a man be born again 
(revis. anew) he cannot see the kingdom of 
God," and "We speak that we do know 
and testify that we have seen"; and, again 
(John xiv. 26; and xvi. 8, 13), "When he is 


come he shall reprove (revis. will convict) the 
world of sin," and " He shall bring all things to 
remembrance whatsoever I have said unto you ; 
he shall guide you into all truth." It is a nec- 
essary a priori conviction, a demonstrative con- 
clusion that confirms as well as illustrates Christ's 
words when these essential elements in the nat- 
ure of inspiration are thus coupled in His own 
statement. It was essential that the memory 
of John (xiv. 26) should be Divinely aided 
when he was called to the double duty, first of 
selecting from the mass of incidents and sayings 
of Christ's life (xx. 30 and xxi. 25), and then of 
accurately reporting, some sixty years after they 
were uttered, statements which were not under- 
stood when they were heard. It is an equally 
logical and demonstrative conclusion that noth- 
ing but the teaching of the Divine Spirit could 
lead unlettered Galileans into "all truth" 
needed to satisfy and guide the most cultured 
and advanced minds of all subsequent ages. 
At the same time the entire analogy between 
the co-operative action of human and Divine 
influence in individual spiritual guidance is 
made by Paul, the specially inspired apostle, to 
introduce (1 Cor. 2d chap.) his own statement 
how there came from his pen, now his personal 
"advice," and now the Lord's' "command- 
ment " (chap. 7th). If deep spiritual truth can 


be revealed only by the Divine Spirit, certainly 
no man could speak or write that truth but " in 
the words " taught by that Spirit. Yet more, 
if human imperfection may co-exist and consist 
with Divine influence in spiritual redemption 
in the individual, it may also co-exist and con- 
sist with Divine inspiration ; as the analogy be- 
tween the two, both intimated and declared by 
Jesus and His apostles, teaches. Still yet more, 
it is when the two are brought together in im- 
mediate contrast, as in 1 Cor. 7th chap., that 
Divine infallibility is most clearly seen to rule 
human fallibility in essential spiritual truth as 
distinct from mere rules of expediency ; just as 
the true miracle of Paul was illustrated in its es- 
sential nature by the contrasted pretence of the 
sons of Sceva (Acts xix. 13-20). The inspira- 
tion of the entire record is seen most in its or- 
daining that this contrast be made a part of the 
Divine teaching. In like manner the nature of 
the inspiration of the Old Testament writers is 
set forth by Peter; who like John heard Christ's 
statements. From the analogy of the manner 
in which he and his fellow apostles received and 
wrote what they had " seen and heard," and yet 
did not at all comprehend, Peter declares (1st 
Peter i. 8-12 and 2d i. 16-21 and iii. 2) that the 
same immediate guidance must have been given 
to prophets who " searched what and what man- 


ner of times the Spirit of Christ which was in 
them did signify when it testified beforehand 
the sufferings of Christ and the glory that 
should be revealed." 


The modern doubt thrown on the integrity 
of the " textus receptus " has been met at every 
point by German, French, English and Ameri- 
can scholarship in each of the several depart- 
ments of investigation which reveal the grounds 
of that doubt. Studied effort to undermine the 
integrity of the "textus receptus". began in 
Germany, among the rejectors of the supernat- 
ural interposition clearly manifest, in the Old 
and New Testament records ; whose verity was 
maintained by evangelical as distinct from ra- 
tionalistic interpreters. It was fostered by Ger- 
man speculative tendencies of thought ; and has 
unconsciously pervaded the minds not only of 
a large class in the State Churches of Germany 
and of England, but has stolen into the Scot- 
tish Presbyterian State and Free Churches, and 
has also influenced a large class of American 
Biblical students who have over-estimated the 
comparative value of German philological re- 


The speculative tendency of German intellect, 
already alluded to in physical science as hinted 
by Lewes, has been manifest to the acutest and 
most comprehensive scholars in every depart- 
ment of research. Guizot, in his " History of 
Civilization in Europe," cites the speculative 
tendency of German statesmanship as compared 
with the practical advance of English, American 
and French jurisprudence. Presidents McCosh, 
Porter, and others, have pointed out that tend- 
ency in the century of philosophic development 
since Kant ; and no pages of the history of man 
form in this respect such a contrast as the his* 
tory of French and English as compared with 
German philosophy. Greenleaf, Fisher, Peabody 
and others have revived the age of Grotius and 
Poole in meeting the assaults of speculative 
theorizing as to the authenticity and genuine- 
ness of the Old and New Testament records. 
Tholuck in Germany, and such pupils of his. as 
the American Sears, early warned evangelical 
students for the Christian ministry of the insid- 
ious undercurrent that was sweeping so many a 
brilliant scholar from his moorings. The Amer- 
ican Theological Seminaries, such as those of 
Andover and Newton, of New York and Prince- 
ton, brqught forth men equal to the occasion ; 
and translations from the truer scholars of Ger- 
many itself went to the root of the misleading 


tendency. Within the last twenty years Dornei 
in his exhaustive treatise, and Ritschlbyhis keen 
supplementary analysis, have shown, from their 
native point of view in German theology, how 
the " subjective " tendency to individual specu- 
lation has overruled " objective " devotion to 
the impartial interpretation of the teachings of 
Jesus and of His apostles ; while their American 
auxiliaries, Hodge, Shedd, Washburn and others, 
have in " evangelical alliance " been led to new 
and successful vindications of the " faith once 
delivered to the saints." 

Meanwhile the quiet work of undermining 
the foundations of the whole fabric of the 
Christian faith, the integrity of the text of the 
New Testament, has gone on ; and that through 
the " subjective " rule of " internal evidence " 
unconsciously accepted as legitimate by editors 
of the Greek New Testament, like Griesbach 
and Hahn ; and as unconsciously received by 
American and English as well as German Bible 
students. Its culmination, in the misleading of 
Tregelles and the ambition of Tischendorff , its 
realized outcome in the omissions of the Can- 
terbury revisers, call attention to the fact that 
the Egyptian uncials have been the. blinding 
guide. Germany itself, in her own Hug, has 
furnished the master watchman who has sur- 
veyed the whole field. From the successive 


guardians of the Greek "koine ekdosis" of 
Origen's day to the Oriental, Roman, German 
and English translators, the " watchmen," who, 
in all ages and on all the encompassing battle- 
ments, have guarded "the truth as it is in 
Jesus," have " seen eye to eye." American 
Christians, under the shelter of whose institu- 
tions inquiring minds of every nation and 
from all the continents are gathering — Ameri- 
can Christians, who need more than any people 
of any age to know and hold the truth, have 
learned from Germany itself how the " true 
light" shining from heaven is to be distin- 
guished from the " false lights " that have been 
kindled along their shore. 


The fact realized by Origen in the second 
century has been re-confirmed ; and that through 
the indirect agency of the British and Foreign 
Bible Society. As Paul affirmed in his day, so 
in the second and the nineteenth centuries the 
fact is confirmed, that the chief honor of the 
Israelite Church is this : the " lively oracles " 
of the Old Testament, given to Israel in their 



own tongue, have been preserved in their integ- 
rity from the day that Jesus sanctioned that 
preserved record as God's revelation. It is to 
the honor of American Bible and Mission Soci- 
eties that the Divine origin of the New Testa- 
ment has been attested as never before in 
Christian history. That the truths of natural 
and revealed religion are in harmony, and that 
both alike are from man's Maker, has been 
demonstrated by this fact : not a nation or 
tribe, however rude, has ever been found whose 
ideas and words, beforehand conceived and put 
in form, have not permitted the transfer and 
translation of the ideas and words embodied in 
the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Certainly the book 
is Divine ; God's own gift, inspired by Him, to 
be man's guide ; and surely He who gave it will 
influence His own servants to guard it. 

The chief boon bestowed by the band of En- 
glish and American scholars who have given a 
version of the Sacred Scriptures in the language 
now read by nations encircling the globe will be 
twofold. Many a new light will meet the eyes 
of deeply yearning readers, as the words of the 
great body of the New Testament records are 
drunk in by spirits longing to find the truth 
there revealed. But this accomplished end, in- 
estimable because of its wide extent, will prove 
but secondary. As for the first time since the 


days of the apostles this widely-read version 
reveals chasms, unknown to Greek and Oriental, 
to Roman and Protestant readers, the causes of 
the omission will be sought. What Lewes hinted 
as to the spirit of English research, the zeal 
which Robinson and others have illustrated in 
American Biblical research, may be awakened and 
stimulated. Instead of the mountains of Bactria 
and Thibet being filled with camel hunters, the 
" famine for the word of God " may, as in Amos' 
day, prompt the search for new fields where 
the uncorrupted " seed," which as Christ said 
is " the word of God," may be found. The un- 
explored convent-libraries along the Nile, men- 
tioned by Lane and Wilkinson, may be searched ; 
the originals from which the uncial manuscripts 
were corrected may be found ; and the versions 
really used and therefore regarded authoritative 
in the Abyssinian, Coptic, Syrian, Armenian 
and Russian Churches may be studied and col- 
lated. Most of all, the real grounds for the 
adherence of the Greek Church, the natural 
guardian of the sacred text, to their "koine 
ekdosis" may be examined and weighed. It 
cannot be that the Divine Author of the New 
Covenant, after guarding so carefully the Old 
Testament, will suffer the imperfection of man 
to " disannul or add to " the New Testament, 
His perfected revelation of His will for man. 
Fresh confirmation of the occasion and prom* 


ise of the foregoing review comes to hand as its 
last pages are stereotyped. The London Quar- 
terly for October, 1881, reviews four works : the 
Revised Version, issued by the Cambridge and 
Oxford presses ; the Greek Text of Dr. Scrive- 
ner of Cambridge, that of Dr. Palmer of Oxford, 
and that of Drs. Westcott and Hort of Cam- 
bridge and London. The writer declares that 
the Revision is " founded on an entirely new re - 
vision of the received Greek Text," and de- 
nounces it as a " serious " assumption thus to 
commit the English Universities. He urges 
that the "common text" has been Divinely 
guarded in numberless Greek copies, in ver- 
sions and in early Christian citations. He 
shows that i t is the Egyptian uncials which have 
misled Tregelles and Tischendorff ; and declares 
they have " established a tyrannical ascendancy 
over the imaginations of the critics." He fills 
pages with illustrations of their disagreement 
among themselves; and dwells on the doubt 
thrown on the last twelve verses of Mark's Gos- 
pel ; on the conforming of the Lord's prayer to 
Luke's abbreviated abstract of the Sermon and 
Prayer ; and on the change in the angel's song 
over Bethlehem. He traces the errors of the 
uncials to four classes and causes : accident, de- 
sign, assimilation and mutilation. The Divine 
Providence which has permitted this revived 
discussion saw its need and foresaw its end. 

History of the Bible & Versions 

These books are available for FREE - ONLINE (for Now) 

For Those interested in the History of the Bible in English 

Cannon of the Old and New Testaments by Professor Archibald 

The English Revisers' Greek Text-Shown to be Unauthorized, 
Exceptby Egyptian Copies Discarded ( A Long Title buta worthwhile 
project giving a lot of often censored information) 

Does the Revised Version affect the New Testament by 
Thurcaston (Deals with Westcott & Hort changed Revised 

Life of KANAMORI and the Impact of Textual Criticism 

Our Own English Bible by Heaton 

The traditional text of the Holy Gospels vindicated and 
established (1896); by Professor John William Burgon 

The causes of the corruption of the traditional text of the 
Holy Gospel by Professor John William Burgon 

The Revision Revised by Professor John William Burgon 

The Puritan Bible by Heaton 

Faber, George Stanley, 1773-1854 

The apostolicity of Trinitarianism: or, The testemony of history 

By George Stanley Faber -1832 

Which Version ? A Search for Answers by Philip Mauro 

Titles are included in case you are interested, but obviously each person must investigate 
truth for themselves and reach their own conclusions 

History of the Bible - Textual Criticism 

These books are available for FREE - ONLINE (for Now) 

For Those interested in Textual Criticism 

to establish or vindicate the Truth and Accuracy of the Bible 

Books to start with: 

The Higher Criticism by PATON 

The Bible and Modern Criticism by Robert A [R.A.] Anderson 

An inquiry into the integrity of the Greek Vulgate- or, 

Received text of the New Testament 1815 

( defense of the Received Text in Ancient Greek, sometimes known 

as the GREEK Vulgate or the Textus Receptus) 

A vindication of 1 John, v. 7 from the objections of M. Griesbach 

The books of the Old and New Testaments proved to be canonical, and 
their verbal inspiration maintained and established : with an account oi 
the introduction and character of the Apocrypha by Robert Haldane 

Review of the conduct of the directors of the British and Foreign 
Bible Society relative to the Apocrypha and to their administration on 
the continent : with an answer to the Rev. C. Simeon, and observations 
on the Cambridge remarks (1828) by Haldane 

the paramount authority of the Holy Scriptures vindicated (1868) 

For those interested in Ancient Koine Greek: 

Codex B and Its Allies - 2 Volumes - by Prof. Herman Hoskier 
The Textus Receptus - Edition of Scrivener of 1860 

The Textus Receptus - Edition of Cura P. Wilson 1833 

r History of the Bible -The Old Testament -i 

These books are available for FREE - ONLINE (for Now) 

(Masoretico [online] is spelled with one S or two. This is a Two Volume 
set with serious commentary on the Hebrew Manuscripts of the O.T.) 
[one of the few scholars since the time of Ben Chayyim] 

RAWLINSON - Historical EVIDENCES of the TRUTH of the Scripture Records 


The higher Criticism and the Verdict of the Monuments 
Henry Sayce- SAYCE 

Recapitulated apostasy (on 666) by George Stanley Faber 
a forerunner of Hidden Dangers of the Rainbow 

Author Faber, George Stanley, 1773-1854. 
Christ's discourse at Capernaum : fatal to the doctrine 
of transubstantiation 
by George Stanley Faber. - 1840. 

Faber, George Stanley, 1773-1854 

The apostolicity of Trinitarianism: or, The testemony of history, to the positive 
antiquity, and to the apostolical inculation, of the doctrine 
of the Holy Trinity. By George Stanley Faber 
Publish info London, J . G . & F . Rivington, 1832 

Faber, George Stanley, 1773-1854 
The difficulties of Romanism. By George Stanley Faber .. 
Publish info Philadelphia, Towar & Hogan, 1829 
Is the Higher Criticism Scholarly (RD WILSON) 

The Seventh General Council, the Second of Nicaea, Held A.D. 787 
, in which the Worship of Images ... (1850) 

Monument Facts and Higher Critical Fancies by A H Sayce